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

671–680 of 773 posts

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

#671

Post by [deleted] »

nomel wrote: post #597
2devnull wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there not internet bandwidth involved? Bandwidth for one person means less bandwidth for another, doesn’t it?

How Starlink works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs2QcycggWU Its nearest ground station bounced off nearest satellite, or some inter-satellite laser links to make some hops, then to the user. It's optimized to be shortest route, just like routers with the wired internet you're using now: if you stream a movie, that request goes to in a short path from the server to you. You streaming doesn't slow down someone in C…

[deleted]

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

#672

Post by 2devnull »

nomel wrote: post #597
2devnull wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there not internet bandwidth involved? Bandwidth for one person means less bandwidth for another, doesn’t it?

How Starlink works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs2QcycggWU Its nearest ground station bounced off nearest satellite, or some inter-satellite laser links to make some hops, then to the user. It's optimized to be shortest route, just like routers with the wired internet you're using now: if you stream a movie, that request goes to in a short path from the server to you. You streaming doesn't slow down someone in C…

There are what 150 gateways/ground stations. That’s a finite number, no?

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

#673

Post by fragmede »

acdha wrote: post #463
mannykannot wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not obvious that even level 5 FSD will require either self-awareness or a theory of mind: adequate modeling of the possible behaviors of nearby actors in the immediate future may be "all" it takes, and current systems are struggling with that. Of course, if one were to define FSD in terms of being so capable that it could also likely pass the Turing test (or whatever better replacement we come up with as a meas…

I said “substantial subset” precisely to avoid this kind of tangent. My point was simply that there are a lot of edge cases we have no clear path to solving which are masked at the current level by punting the problem to the human driver. We are a very long time from being able to build cars without manual controls even if we might hit the point where a majority of driving miles are automated long before then.

Cars without manual controls are closer than you think. The Waymo cars do just fine without a human driver in the seat, and before they got suspended, Cruise was just starting a pilot program with vehicles without manual controls called the Cruise Origin. Sale of such a vehicle to the general public is a ways off but for a taxi service we're pretty close.

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

#674

Post by danbruc »

madaxe_again wrote: post #285
danbruc wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink is nothing that you deploy and then you are done. When you have launched the last satellite, then the first ones launched will have reached the end of their lifespan and you essentially have to start over, deploy the entire constellation once again as the satellites reach the end of their lifespan one by one. With a lifespan of say 5 years, you will have to deploy the entire constellation once every 5 years,…

I’ve got news for you about Earth-based networking gear. You don’t just install it and forget about it forever - you replace and upgrade, almost continuously, and lifespans are frequently significantly less than five years.

Of course, any system will need maintenance. My point was that you need the capacity to do the maintenance and you have to be able to do it cost effectively. That means in the case of Starlink it might actually be important to have Starship available because only this way they have the necessary capacity or cost effectiveness to maintain the constellation while using Falcons might not be good enough. I also say might, I of course don't know, I was just addressing the question why availability of Starship might be a relevant factor.

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

#675

Post by runlaszlorun »

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.

Former Bradley guy here. Like others have mentioned, it’s done far better then expected. It (along with any other IFV) are pretty much the ultimate Swiss army knife of a military vehicle. It can pretty much do almost any ground role even though isn’t insanely awe inspiring for any one. And the 25mm autocannon is prob the easiest thing in our existing arsenal we have to adapt for an anti-drone role.

And, no, that one set of photos from Ukraine of Bradleys damaged in a minefield has zero bearing pro or con given the 40 years of experience we have otherwise with it.

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

#676

Post by fastball »

Timon3 wrote: post #670
fastball wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, linked to the wrong one. This is the one[1] (and twitter thread[2]) that calls that out more specifically. And the one I linked first starts by saying it agrees completely with Carr's dissent. [1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf [2] https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/173469670679577812...

Thank you for providing the correct link. I just read through it, and I guess you could stretch the first paragraph very, very far to make it compatible with "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations", but unless Mr. Carr has brought something like this up more explicitly, it seems like you're trying to read something into it that he didn't write. There are many way…

Why do you think it needs to be stretched very, very far? I don't think it needs to be stretched at all. The first sentence is literally:

> Last year, after Elon Musk acquired Twitter and used it to voice his own political and ideological views without a filter, President Biden gave federal agencies a greenlight to go after him.

The Biden admin (and by extension the FCC) is "the feds", and "voicing views without a filter" is a paraphrasing of "refusing to censor", and the Biden admin wanting to censor things from social media is, in fact, well-documented[1].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-blocks-order-...

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

#677

Post by boldslogan »

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #655
boldslogan wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is taxes, what you’re looking for. Not to be snarky

What tax properly emulates gains from holding stake?

well first you have to imagine, what is a gain from holding stake? At the end of the day, is it really a claim on future profits? Maybe more reasonably just a stock that you can trade/sell for money. And what does one do with that money? Buy things I guess to increase your welfare.

Tax expenditure in the ideal setting would be spent on clean water, education, etc. things that increase your welfare. And successful companies paying lots of taxes hopefully increase the welfare of a country.

So it is kind of like taxes emulate welfare increase...is the way I see it.

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

#678

Post by fullspectrumdev »

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.

The Bradley is actually good. Did it have some initial hiccups? Sure, but all military equipment has.

These days? The Bradley fucking rocks. My friends out in harms way love them.

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

#680

Post by fullspectrumdev »

runlaszlorun wrote: post #675
justsomehnguy wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bradley IFV is not on this list.

Former Bradley guy here. Like others have mentioned, it’s done far better then expected. It (along with any other IFV) are pretty much the ultimate Swiss army knife of a military vehicle. It can pretty much do almost any ground role even though isn’t insanely awe inspiring for any one. And the 25mm autocannon is prob the easiest thing in our existing arsenal we have to adapt for an anti-drone role. And, no, that one…

My friends in Ukraine fucking love the Bradley. It fills a lot of roles, being very useful for casevac under fire (much better than many alternative options).
Post reply on HN