521–530 of 831 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kessler syndrome is a theoretical construction, yet too many people speak of it as a certainty-beyond-any-doubt, like you do.
Some people aren't smart enough to appreciate theory. These people don't even learn the hard way either. They take their disbelief and excuses to their grave. For the rest of us, good theories aren't just admired from afar, they're acted upon before they materialize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on Musk being a nazi, or is that just hyperbole?
Nazi might be a bit much, but he’s pretty clearly guilty of treason. He blocked a US funded military strike that would have sunk Russia’s navy a while back. (The definition of treason in the US is extremely clear, and he obviously crossed the line.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Starlink is indeed awesome and SpaceX deserves every bit of their success. But there will be competitors eventually, if for no other reason than foreign militaries sponsoring them. There's no inherent reason for this to be a winner takes all market. We can only hope the competitors are half as responsible as SpaceX has been about space debris risk and ensuring the satellites are not visible to the naked e…
IMO, one of the central problems is the cost of launching stuff into space. Today, SpaceX offers world leading low prices to launch satellites: $4 m / tonne[1]. But Starlink has access to launch at cost , which is $0.86 m / tonne[2]. Which is a huge advantage when launching an enormous number of satellites. One thing to keep in mind, especially for these LEO constellations: the lifetime of these satellites is 5-10 ye…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, and people were making YouTube videos in the wilderness before that, but the accessibility that came with TikTok and Instagram created a phenomenon increased demand tenfold at many parks. That’s why you have to win a lottery to hike Angels Landing in Zion now. Now we get wilderness livestreams! What will that do?
How more demand for national parks a bad thing?
Is it selfish to want to be able to enjoy one of the most beautiful spots in Canada without it being crowded? Absolutely. But the sheer volume of people makes in a completely unenjoyable experience, not to mention the dangers of erosion/wilful destruction/litter/etc that over-toured nature spots eventually succumb to. The nice thing right now is that there are many, many places to go that most people won’t, due to lack of accessibility, lack of cell service, etc. By breaking down barriers, you open the floodgates.
I used to despise gatekeeping, wanting everyone to be able to experience as many joys as possible. But when seeing what happens when the masses get access to delicate niches, my opinion shifts. Maybe I’m just getting older and grumpier though, so take it with a grain of salt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Volkswagen was created by the Nazis. It translates to "People's Car". It sounds pretty Socialist to me.
Volkswagen was one small part of the Nazi's policy. It ultimately didn't deliver a single car to the users of its government-endorsed savings scheme, but instead was used for military production. You know what other companies have heavily relied on billions of dollars of government subsidies and military contracts? https://archive.is/lVZ3f
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s awesome but also worrying. Elon is a political timebomb. I wouldn’t put it past him to selectively deny people usage based on political alignment, sex etc. At least for now there are much worse geosynchronous competitors, but some future state where one doesn’t exist is worrying.
Musk is at least a named individual, somewhat accountable for his decisions. Yes him having the ability to cut people off is worrying, but I'm less worried about him doing it than e.g. the Internet Watch Foundation, or whoever cut off Kiwi Farms (where we still don't really know who's actually responsible).
Keffals and Fong-Jones
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the USA did not, I don't see what would prevent China from shooting down Starlink's constellation. Except China, does any other country have the ability to do this? With US government permission, Starlink could ignore the radio licensing rules of Iran, South Africa or even the EU.
It then turn down to "soft" warfare. Iran will give some guy a missile to shoot your cargo ship. I'd like them to do that for countries that can't do anything though (ie: some countries in Africa). Good for the citizenry and no side-effects.
Violating RR is already "soft" warfare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they don't put people on the ground they don't have the insights required. It's like trying to diagnose WiFi next to a radar station remotely when you don't know the user is next to one
Again... the logistical structure of the company is not something that the customer should have to be privy to when trying to figure out if the product is going to workout for them, or not. If the product is not going to be working, the company should not be charging the customer $100 a month for 8 months promising a fix that will never come in.
Just pointing out that there's things you can't diagnose without being physically present. And these kinds of issues aren't only existent in Telecoms or SATCOM in particular.
The user should ask for a credit/refund. The product was almost certainly working. But not meeting expectations. If not it wouldn't have been on for 8 months. Can't tell me you ran 0 bytes over it
Starlink: Direct to Target
And as such it's an action against every other state. Much like the War on Terror, some NSA activities and so on it's the US making aggressive moves against everyone else.