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

Starlink Direct to Cell

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#811

Post by throwaway290 »

aguaviva wrote: post #802
throwaway290 wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether to provide Crimea with Starlink or not depends on who sits there. Similar reason why all Crimeans got under sanctions immediately after annexation. Not just Starlink but every other Western company respecting sanctions stopped doing business with Crimea. Same with Donetsk and Luhansk. No one cares if it's "legally" Ukraine. People care about the "effectively". Legally always depends on who you ask. Some will…

No one cares if it's "legally" Ukraine. That's objectively just not true at all. Legally always depends on who you ask. Also not true at all. Of course, you can always find people who say something wildly at odds with the overwhelming international consensus, and in any case completely lacking in any intrinsic substance. But that doesn't mean what they're saying is even potentially valid, and that the matter "depends…

I replied to a guy who said Musk turned off Starlink in Crimea. Which is false. If we are not talking about that then I don't know what we're talking about.

> That's objectively just not true at all.

I'll clarify. For the purposes of doing business there no one cares if it's legally Ukraine.

> Of course, you can always find people who say something wildly at odds with the overwhelming international consensus

Yes I can find a Crimea full of them and probably half the world at large who will say it is legally Russia now.

I properly talked to one Crimean only in my life and he voted for Russia in referendum. he said most people did because higher salary etc. When war began he left the country tho. Maybe he realized his mistake but probably just didn't want to get killed.

International consensus is fluid and ephemeral (maybe even precisely because people like putler)

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#812

Post by aguaviva »

throwaway290 wrote: post #811
aguaviva wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one cares if it's "legally" Ukraine. That's objectively just not true at all. Legally always depends on who you ask. Also not true at all. Of course, you can always find people who say something wildly at odds with the overwhelming international consensus, and in any case completely lacking in any intrinsic substance. But that doesn't mean what they're saying is even potentially valid, and that the matter "depends…

I replied to a guy who said Musk turned off Starlink in Crimea. Which is false. If we are not talking about that then I don't know what we're talking about. > That's objectively just not true at all. I'll clarify. For the purposes of doing business there no one cares if it's legally Ukraine. > Of course, you can always find people who say something wildly at odds with the overwhelming international consensus Yes I ca…

If we are not talking about that then I don't know what we're talking about.

My assumption was it was simply the context I chimed in on -- in regard to the region's sovereignty status and the bogus 2014 referendum.

Will hopefully get to the other stuff later. But just to get that squared away for now.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#814

Post by openrisk »

refurb wrote: post #795
openrisk wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry, the burden is on you to distinguish genuine business accomplishment from what others might suspect, less charitably, is excellence in crony capitalism [1],[2]. The Economist made a feeble effort to rank countries in this respect [3] but it does not even include the tech sector in the "crony-prone" sectors (eyes rolling). [1] "situation in which businesses profit from a close relationship with state power, eith…

sorry, the burden is on you to distinguish genuine business accomplishment from what others might suspect, less charitably, is excellence in crony capitalism No, actually the burden is on the person making that claim (you).

If you think "ideal businessmen" can spend millions to influence political outcomes and overtly commingle public and private interests I question the integrity of your judgement and feel no burden whatsoever.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#815

Post by refurb »

openrisk wrote: post #814
refurb wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry, the burden is on you to distinguish genuine business accomplishment from what others might suspect, less charitably, is excellence in crony capitalism No, actually the burden is on the person making that claim (you).

If you think "ideal businessmen" can spend millions to influence political outcomes and overtly commingle public and private interests I question the integrity of your judgement and feel no burden whatsoever.

Have you stopped the “crony capitalism” and moved onto something else now?

Now that you’ve brought up political money and public and private interests, I’m starting to think you don’t like his politics and that’s about it.

I can think of any other business who doesn’t spend millions for politics and “commingle public and private interests” (whatever that actually means).

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#816

Post by refurb »

scotty79 wrote: post #800
refurb wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the British would say the proof is in the pudding . I do know we didn’t have self-landing rockets nor a massive reduced cost of space cargo until SpaceX. Whether Musk hired the author of a Moon grant is irrelevant to that fact. Same with Tesla. We had multiple, massively funded car companies try and fail to mass produce an electric car consumers wanted Whether Musk overpromises FSD isn’t relevant to that accomplis…

We also used to not have have LLMs, bipedal and quadrupedal robots, ubiquitous GPS maps, cell phones, miniature cameras of insane quality, ridiculously fast mobile internet connections, residential fiber and many other useful things. Many smart people make things happen all the time. Regardless of whether there's some singular rich grifter in that specific that can latch onto them soon enough to claim credit or not.

Hence the term “businessman”, you know business, not technological advances.

And regardless I made no claim that any of those other things aren’t important, so feel free to knock down your own strawman.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#817

Post by scotty79 »

refurb wrote: post #816
scotty79 wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also used to not have have LLMs, bipedal and quadrupedal robots, ubiquitous GPS maps, cell phones, miniature cameras of insane quality, ridiculously fast mobile internet connections, residential fiber and many other useful things. Many smart people make things happen all the time. Regardless of whether there's some singular rich grifter in that specific that can latch onto them soon enough to claim credit or not.

Hence the term “businessman”, you know business , not technological advances. And regardless I made no claim that any of those other things aren’t important, so feel free to knock down your own strawman.

It's just scary that so many people that find such "businessman" something to admire.

That latching onto smart people and ousting them out of their own achievements and replacing with yourself in public imagination is something to admire.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#818

Post by refurb »

scotty79 wrote: post #817
refurb wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the term “businessman”, you know business , not technological advances. And regardless I made no claim that any of those other things aren’t important, so feel free to knock down your own strawman.

It's just scary that so many people that find such "businessman" something to admire. That latching onto smart people and ousting them out of their own achievements and replacing with yourself in public imagination is something to admire.

People make a simple statement "Musk is the most successful businessman" and you think you know their internal thought process and are ready to condemn them.

Your own bias is showing.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#819

Post by LoveMortuus »

mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

You don't think that Blue Origin could be a competitor? They are quite behind, but they are backed by quite a lot of money, I feel like I remember even hearing news about Blue Origin placing their own internet satellites.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#820

Post by scotty79 »

refurb wrote: post #818
scotty79 wrote: post #817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just scary that so many people that find such "businessman" something to admire. That latching onto smart people and ousting them out of their own achievements and replacing with yourself in public imagination is something to admire.

People make a simple statement "Musk is the most successful businessman" and you think you know their internal thought process and are ready to condemn them. Your own bias is showing.

This simple statement shows that either they don't understand what kind of "businessman" Musk is exactly or they know but they don't care about it. He's the most successful grifter. Most successful conman. Those are simple statementd too. I condemn people who say those in honest admiration. I also condemn those ignorant of what means to be the kind of businessman Musk is while praising him.
Post reply on HN