𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

This article was amended on 14 September 2023 to add an update to the subheading. As the Guardian reported on 12 September 2023, following the publication of this article, Walter Isaacson retracted the claim in his biography of Elon Musk that the SpaceX CEO had secretly told engineers to switch off Starlink coverage of the Crimean coast.

IIRC Musk didn’t switch it off, it wasn’t turned on in the first place and Musk refused to turn it on when the Ukrainian military reqeusted it.

Musk is a shithead but not for this reason.

China/russia/middle east not allowing it, is not the same as not being available. Did you even check the coverage map before replying.

So can you use it or is it not available then? And yes, I checked that map, where else do you think I got the list from??

Astronomers complain about light bleed from ground cities as well. No one was telling them to shut down the cities.

People claim we should turn down city lights all the time! Under what rock have you been living? But for city light bleed, astronomers have an alternative solution, simply place the telescope somewhere not near the cities. And yes, whenever a city tends to grow near one of those telescopes astronomers do kick up a fuss about it.

If you fill LEO with thousands of sattelites, there’s nothing astronomers can do about that.

Lol no just no… I dont know where you live but the majority of people in rural areas are not served, otherwise starlink would have never taken off and been sustainable.

I don’t know where you live, Mars perhaps?

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:InternetPenetrationWorldMap.svg

Clearly shows most of the Earth has internet access. Or do you think the US has no rural areas? They’re still above 90% somehow. Oh wait, I know, they must be using those mythical internet-via-sattelite services that existed well before Starlink did! I wonder where you’d find a mythical creature like the Viasat-1 for example.

Starlink took off because they promise higher speeds than some ISPs and most other sattelite companies do at lower cost, not because they’re your only option. Starlink has 3 million customers, which makes them the size of a small ISP.

Again this myth you keep spouting that the majority of the world has access is bullshit

Except for the fact that the data backs me up.

planes exist but you need to walk because you live to far from the airport is some classist bullshit.

Continuing your analogy, you propose demolishing the local university because people are entitled to fly to Ibiza, or their local supermarket. Or something, it’s not like it made much sense anyway.

You still completely failed to address the main point, that universal high-speed internet access is not critical for most of the world, certainly not for areas that have always managed perfectly fine without, and that filling up LEO is a disaster for astronomists that they don’t have a workaround for. If you’re not going to actually argue that point I think we’re done here.

Starlink doesn’t cover the globe, it’s available in the Americas, Europe and Oceania. It’s not available in most of Africa, the Middle East, India, China, Russia, Indochina. E.g. the majority of the world cannot access Starlink.

I don’t give a shit that Starlink is owned by Musk. Starlink as a company seems fine (it’s not X or anything), but I strongly dislike that their product messes with astronomy in such a major way that astronomists complain about it every chance they get.

You know that some of us are 10miles from town and considered rural? And the big Telecoms refuse to run broadband for us?

Sounds like your fight is with “big telecom” and with your local government for not putting up a good enough quote to run fiber. This isn’t an issue for large portions of the world, including rural areas, where they’ve figured out how to get them to lay fiber.

Internet access for a long time has been pushed as a priority and should be treated as a utility and that everyone should have access to it.

Access is not the same as high-speed access. Almost all of the world has some level of access, even in rural areas, through sattelites that are not in LEO. Enough to (slowly) browse, not enough to stream in HD. I don’t believe sacrificing considerable astronomical discoveries and progress is remotely worth it when feasible alternatives are available and have been used in large areas of the world already.

You realise that this has held true for literally everywhere, and that it’s only a matter of time until they’re connected too? Between 2017 and 2023 an additional 20% of the world received internet access, a trend that doesn’t appear to be slowing down just yet. By 2030 approximately 80% of the world will have internet access, and somewhere between 2040-2050 we’ll consider the entire world to be connected.

I still see absolutely no reason to screw LEO and fill it with sattelites, just so that someone in bumfuck nowhere can Netflix or something. Internet access may be important for a western lifestyle, but the 90s barely anyone had internet and they lived perfectly fine without it. Even before Starlink sattelite internet existed (and still does), it’s just slower.

Most developing countries have pretty decent internet access already. Maybe not in the more remote areas, but again, access to the internet is not a requirement to live. Internet has barely existed for 30 years, I don’t think screwing up LEO in an attempt to bring faster internet to people who didn’t have it anyway is remotely reasonable.

Not living in an expensive city doesn’t equate to living in extremely remote areas. If you choose to live in an area with very few services, then don’t expect the rest of the world to bend over backwards to provide those for you at their expense. The sheer entitlement is hilarious.

Besides, there’s still internet, just not fast broadband.

Ehrm, no to both questions? You live in rural fucking Canada. Connectivity will be shit, that’s a given. If you choose a job that relies on that, you should move to where you can actually work.

Fast internet is a privilege, not something people “deserve”. Fucking up LEO so people can stream or Netflix or whatever is absolutely not worth it, and imo the practice should be banned. Starlink has been disastrous for astronomy already. Put fiber in if it’s so important, expensive but hey, people “deserve” it right?

It’s not always true that appeals must go to some “higher court”. In some countries appeals may end up before the same judge, or another judge from the same court.

The US army does indeed, and they would be valid military targets. People working for the EPA, perhaps not so much. Hezbollah however is structured towards support for the militant arm, as the Lebanese government handles civilian tasks.

And I’m sure Islamic State and the Taliban have non-combatant elements too.

I don’t mind Israel defending against militant groups that fire rockets into Israel. I do mind them carpet-bombing civilian populations. This pager-thing seems to have the hallmarks of an operation that manages to cripple Hezbollah with a minimal loss of life and even fairly low civilian casualties. I much prefer Israel do this over the alternatives.

There’s thousands of Hezbollah militants as well. We don’t know yet exactly how targeted the attack was.

Regardless “only” 9 people died so far. Thousands were wounded, but that’s much better than land mines would’ve been. This attack was extraordinarily targeted, and despite there being civilians hurt, they’re likely to be less hurt than the militants and unlikely to be among the dead. Every civilian death is a tragedy, but Hezbollah and Israel are in an armed conflict. Some civilian deaths are unavoidable. I much prefer Israel do this than the indiscriminate bombing on Gaza.

9/11 targeted and killed civilians. This attack largely struck Hezbollah militants, who are in open hostilities with Israel. Doing things this way is far better than the seemingly indiscriminate bombing in Gaza.

It’s less antisemitic though. Please don’t conflate Jewish people with Israel, it’s caused enough problems as it is.

I can see this having some advantages over two-folds. The unfolded screen has a better aspect ratio, there’s no need for a “back”-screen and all folds have only one screen on them, allowing the full thing to be thinner.

Price is an issue of course, as well as it having HarmonyOS instead of Android (less app compatibility).

Is it? The original artwork was fairly clickbaity imo.

There are enough sensors in cars to detect a rythmic motion. It doesn’t need cameras for that.

Wikipedia. Google Maps. The store of knowledge available from search engines. I use those all the time. You want to cut them off from that?

That’s a bit overdramatic. Most kids have a laptop for schoolwork these days. I personally didn’t get a smartphone until I started university, got a Samsung S7 then. I had no issues accessing any of those sources. These days I have a comp sci masters degree, so it definitely didn’t “stunt” me in any way.

I read and certainly write way more text than I did in the pre-Internet era. Do you want kids reading and writing less?

Kids reading and writing skills appear to have been declining ever since the rise of the smartphone, so I doubt they’re reading anything of sufficient quality to hone those skills a bit.

Schools here have recently mostly banned smartphones, and the kids seem happier for it and their grades and concentration in school is improving. Sound like positives to me.

Even sadder:

The reasons for this shift in budget away from funding Free Software and the NGI initiative seems to be an allocation of more funds for AI, leaving internet infrastructure by the wayside.

That’s a very specific usecase though that the majority of programmers likely will never have to face.

A single server not booting should not usually lead to a loss of service as you should always run some sort of redundancy.

I’m a dev for a medium-sized PSP that due to our customers does occasionally get targetted by malicious actors, including state actors. We build our services to be highly available, e.g. a server not booting would automatically do a failover to another one, and if that fails several alerts will go off so that the sysadmins can investigate.

Temporary loss of service does lead to reputational damage, but if contained most of our customers tend to be understanding. However, if a malicious actor could gain entry to our systems the damage could be incredibly severe (depending on what they manage to access of course), so much so that we prefer the service to stop rather than continue in a potentially compromised state. What’s worse: service disrupted for an hour or tons of personal data leaked?

Of course, your threat model might be different and a compromised server might not lead to severe damage. But Crowdstrike/Microsoft/whatever may not know that, and thus opt for the most “secure” option, which is to stop the boot process.