371–380 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm actually a huge fan of "unlimited slow speeds" as a falloff, instead of a cliff. When on cellular, I like to call that "HN-only mode." It is one of the few web properties that is entirely usable at 2G speeds.
I would kill for a web renaissance to return to this format of webpages, as least as an option. Not only loading improves, but also navigation and accessibility.
Nice that instead of completely cutting you off at the cap they put it in super slow 500 kbits. That is actually usable and used to be the fastest speed you could get at home.
Still with pretty low latency (25-35ms) as well (similar to the Standby (aka pause) state you can put the account into for $5/mo)
Anecdotally, even though I'd have told you that 500 was probably enough for non-streaming stuff that I do most of the time, in my experience when my connection switches over to Starlink (I have Comcast primarily, but it has had reliability problems the last few months), it usually hits the Starlink limits pretty hard. I've never identified any nefarious activity, it just seems like all the little things on my workstations and various devices that chatter add up to enough to trigger Starlink's controls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd disagree that that is usable today. A few days ago I had some network trouble that restricted me to about 350kbps, although stable without much packet loss, and a lot of stuff just didn't practically work. At that speed, loading images and resources on webpages within timeout limits is hard. Many web apps don't work, or degrade enough that you wouldn't want to use them. Also what do we actually use the web for? A…
Set your device to "metered network" and all the background shit will stop running. That's what I had to do to get my Starlink mini working in Standby mode. As soon as your device is on WiFi it thinks it's a free for all and starts updating and downloading shit in the background. The 500KB/sec is more than enough as long as that isn't happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should shop around! Some of the MVNOs are offering unlimited fast data at a similar price these days, and something similar to what you have now for cheaper.
MVNO's for life. Weird how they haven't cannibalize their providers yet with such pricing.
Unrelated to the conversation, but the post title was something like "Starlink roam 50GB is now 100GB and unlimited slow speed after that", then a minute later it's now "Roam 50GB is now Roam 100GB". Was this change made by a mod or OP, and why would someone making that change? I do think the original title was more descriptive, and the new title was completely out of context, or it's imply that everyone is using Sta…
The guidelines[0] state: > ... > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm actually a huge fan of "unlimited slow speeds" as a falloff, instead of a cliff. Aside from the fact it allows you to work with Starlink to buy more fast speed, it also allows core stuff to continue to function (e.g. basic notifications, non-streaming web traffic, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Put your money where your mouth is I do, through my tax dollars. And the amount of money that was DOGEd was literally couch cushion change on the scale of the federal budget. And not only did those cuts directly lead to deaths but weakened US soft power all around the world, letting China step in.
China’s soft power play yielded returns: ports, minerals, oil, factories, customers for their exports. The only Americans benefiting from the existing aid scheme are the network of lobbyists and NGOs. As I said upthread, if you’re that motivated, donate $500 to a high-impact charity and you’ll do far more good for people on the ground than what your taxes were doing at USAID.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but it's all links to the other places.
Except the comments, but who even bothers with those?
My thinking is that we're getting tons of bad articles now that it's so easy to make a bad article that, when skimmed, looks good, and is a good jumping off point for comments.
I think in the past it was somewhat high effort to make such an article, so most articles that look good when skimmed actually WERE pretty good. But now it's trivially easy to make an article that looks good when skimmed, and so we're getting a lot of articles whose only value is a jumping off point for comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. That's why, when they finally kill old.reddit, I may legitimately stop using it entirely. They've already banned most of the good apps, forcing the pretty terrible official one.
I've got a pet theory that old.reddit is actually codified in legal language somewhere as "must always exist." Otherwise, I can't believe Reddit is actually keeping it around out of the goodness in their cold, dead corporate heart.