Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 773 posts

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#371

Post by cycomanic »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #334
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched a panel discussion on self driving cars in 2015 with several legit experts in the technology (I believe Sebastian Thrun was one of them). There were also some CEOs. The experts all said there’s no way the tech would deploy before 2025, potentially later. The CEOs were saying 2018 or 2019. The experts had a clear view way back then, the CEOs just don’t want to listen.

Waymo deployed cars without safety drivers to Tempe in 2021.

I'd argue even waymo is still far away from FSD. Driverless cars on a restricted set of roads with a remote operator monitoring things (and the ability to quickly resolve issues), is nowhere close to what I (and the general public I would argue) understands as fully self driving.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#372

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #369
TheAlchemist wrote: post #237

It looks like it's becoming apparent that Elon's empire is based on a lot of impossible promises. Starlink is probably one of them. A perfect 'business' for Musk. You can show something great - high speed internet in remote areas - and then extrapolate that - just think about the whole world etc... Faster than fibre, with V2... Thing is, this business is probably not economically viable. It can work if not a lot of p…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#373

Post by aeturnum »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #334
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched a panel discussion on self driving cars in 2015 with several legit experts in the technology (I believe Sebastian Thrun was one of them). There were also some CEOs. The experts all said there’s no way the tech would deploy before 2025, potentially later. The CEOs were saying 2018 or 2019. The experts had a clear view way back then, the CEOs just don’t want to listen.

Waymo deployed cars without safety drivers to Tempe in 2021.

This is always a game of boundary-setting. In one way that's true, in another way Waymo is 21+ years behind[1]. People have been setting up 'particular vehicles' to navigate 'particular areas' for decades. If the Waymo "self driving car" is an expansion of older site-specific tech, then there's nothing new under the sun. If their car is can be put anywhere then it just being able to drive in Tempe isn't proof of that.

IMO the truth is more with the experts. Each new location seems to require a lot of tuning to get right and function in a way the company is happy with. If a "self driving car" is one we can drop anywhere and have it drive we are still waiting on that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParkShuttle

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#374

Post by isk517 »

delecti wrote: post #357
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never did Musk say "We'll have it done in six months".

This: https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/ (linked in the GGP to your comment) links to this tweet from Jan 23, 2017 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/823727035088416768 When asked the question "At what point will "Full Self-Driving Capability" features noticeably depart from "Enhanced Autopilot" features?" Elon responded "3 months maybe, 6 months definitely" Also, lots of examples of "this year" stated in various January…

Those don't count because Elon had this fingers crossed when he made those tweets. /s

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#375

Post by pmorici »

rrook wrote: post #318
pmorici wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that is a function of satellite density or so the argument seems to suggest. SpaceX is launching rockets multiple times a week and has put more satellites into orbit that any entity in the history of human kind by an order of magnitude or more. Betting they won't be able to meet these speed goals is not a rational conclusion.

If you read through the decision, the reasoning is all there, it's absolutely rational. What's _not_ rational is preferring personal anecdotal experience over the aggregate analysis.

The reasoning that is there is all subjective.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#376

Post by mcguire »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #313
COGlory wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Montanan with T-Mobile, I promise that those "rural" T-Mobile ones are not the same type of rural that Starlink can serve.

Hell I work at a farm on the coast near Silicon Valley in San Gregorio (designing a farming robot) and Starlink is the only decent internet option we’ve ever had.

What speeds do you get?

Edit: That's weird. San Gregorio is like 15-20 miles from Cupertino. Here in Jackson County, AL, Farmers Telecom Coop has gigabit or half-gigabit fiber to much of the county.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#377

Post by jamroom »

plumeria wrote: post #365
LukeLambert wrote: post #109

My parents in rural Northeast Texas use Starlink as their primary connection (they have a WISP as failover). Since Sept. 2022, I've been running automated speed tests four times a day (1 and 7, AM and PM). Speeds vary a lot throughout the day, but average about 100 Mbps down by 10 Mbps up. https://gist.github.com/LukeLambert/dd722e49bc773bcb27e859d9...

What are you using to run the automated speed tests?

Not sure what they use but I've used Speedtest CLI:

https://www.speedtest.net/apps/cli

works good.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#378

Post by mustacheemperor »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #292
shmatt wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_pr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_pro... F35 Survived but there are like 50 other planes that didnt in that second list

Bradley IFV is not on this list.

Because the Bradley IFV was only a boondoggle within the almost completely fictionalized setting of Pentagon Wars.

Someone else pointed out the performance in Ukraine, but IMO this was already a settled point in 1991, when they collectively destroyed more enemy armor than the Abrams and only lost 3 vehicles to enemy fire.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#379

Post by freejazz »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #176
libraryatnight wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or maybe speeds were dropping, requirements not met, and they didn't want to dump more money on self driving car man's company. Seems reasonable to me - if it also makes elon and his cult sad, that's just a happy accident.

This argument is too deeply rotted with bias to have value. This is going to slow the adoption of broadband and you’re happy because the guy you dislike might be harmed as a consequence. You should reflect on this behavior, because you’re embodying everything you criticize this supposed “other side” of being.

> This argument is too deeply rotted with bias to have value.

As opposed to what it responds to?

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#380

Post by freejazz »

rpmisms wrote: post #254
akamaka wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading that dissent felt as painful as reading a partisan reddit comment. In one paragraph he said Biden is targeting Musk politically, and in the very next he states, as proof of the quality of the internet service, that the Pentagon just signed a contract with Starlink for military applications.

Biden is not the Pentagon.

But he's the FCC? They are both the executive branch.
Post reply on HN