141–150 of 297 posts
So many people here showing they know nothing about satcom or wireless networks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's lied on Twitter before. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776 resulted in his having to step down as Tesla board chair and have his tweets vetted by a minder. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/elon-musk-ordered-to-ab...
I assume he meant that the 20,000 Starlink terminals donated to Ukraine had cost $100 million.
How is this legal? Can Starlink get in trouble from EU and the US?
Curious to see if Musk is willing to step in and disable them or if this treatment is reserved for UAF only.
These kind of conversations are exhausting. I for one don’t know all the details, which I think there are many. I realize it is easy to make a blanket accusation and harder to provide details. Last time I looked this up it was pretty murky. Specifically on your point I believe there was a couple things at play but maybe I am wrong. 1) did not have approval by the state department 2) blanket rule that they could be us…
Isaacson’s Starlink claims are muddied.
But Musk has tweeted Kremlin propaganda points, e.g. on its proximate nuclear red lines (which, for the record, we’ve since passed). I blame David Sacks for giving him bad advice. But whatever the reason, it’s fair to question whether this was intentional at some level.
Isn't this free intelligence? Monitor the communications from Russian locations and around Ukraine.
Having to rely on a hostile technology that could be remote disabled in any moment is not a good indicator for good shape of army in battlefield
I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone propose the possibility that allowing Russia to use Starlimk is an espionage play. I have no idea if that's actually what's going on, but if it would give Starlink information on troop locations and open a door for listening in on all Starlink-based communications, you would want the public and Russia to believe the CEO is on their side. It would also align with the fact that Russi…
But in a world where Musk/Starlink/someone inside Starlink/someone with sufficient leverage over Starlink was trying to hinder the Russian invasion, they would allow Starlink terminals to be sourced through plausibly shady channels and then operate in Russian hands for quite a while, before striking locations and only then shutting down.
Or even go all Ultra on them and start an elaborate programme to create alternative explamations for the data use.
One reason I don't consider this likely: imagine how hard Musk would enjoy going through his very own version of the Cryptinomicon Ultra plot line. The idea that he might be able to keep that a secret just doesn't fit in my skull.
He is the one private person that helped ukraines war effort the most by providing them starlink in the first place.
Is it so hard to understand that there are reasons for him to not allow the usage for deep strikes, besides him beeing on putins payroll?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why is this comment noteworthy? He is a smart guy irrespective of whomsoever makes this observation.
Reductionist thinking is convenient, but far too often misleading.