Sucks when you try to do astrophotography and there’s a ton of fuckin lines across your photos. Also makes general astronomy more difficult. But go off, I guess.
At least for us amateurs satellite trails get completely rejected out during image stacking. They’ll definitely be more of a problem for professional observatories, especially large survey scopes like Vera Rubin
Bruh, are you really going to prioritize a singular type of hobby photography over access to a vital service such as the internet for millions of people? That’s prime NIMBYism.
They’ve done plenty to help mitigate issues with terrestrial observatories. You could just as easily argue their rocketry advancements have made space much more accessible for the human race, which offsets any remaining harm to research telescopes.
This is an absolutely smooth-brained take. Once we fuck up our ability to go to space, that’s it. All those satellites that lift people out of poverty would become shreds of trash, and there’d be no way to get any back up there.
Furthermore, you are completely oversimplifying the ability to mitigate LEO satellite swarm’s effects on astronomy. It’s not being a NIMBY for not wanting corpos to fuck up nature. If we wanted satellite internet globally, it would be much better to make it an international endeavor.
Again, read the article, you utter moron. Musk is incapable of doing this, and neither is the concept itself. That has literally nothing to do with me. Stop attempting to act correct by not even making a valid point.
I imagine Amazon will be the one taking your tax dollars to do business. They famously have no money and need American tax dollars generated by working class labor in order to survive.
I have no issue with subsidizing internet for rural people, or even the global poor. That’s the point of taxes - to resolve externalities and encourage economic mobility.
Kind of neat to see Republicans trickling onto this site, ngl. Not great, but neat.
Don’t think the user you are arguing against is a republican based on their comment alone. Is the Lib take that we should let the private sector profit off of space to the point that we end up with Kessler Syndrome?
If I can’t have 50 options for gigabit internet so my tax dollars can line another billionaire’s pockets, then what’s the point?
Republicans historically so not want to use their tax money to provide for the “undeserving” both locally and globally.
If he’s not opposed to his tax dollars being used in such a way, and instead opposes technology advances as a whole, one wonders why he would be in a technology community
Quite excited to see what some competition will do in this space (no pun intended) with Amazon’s upcoming deployment.
Further ruin the night sky.
Yeah it’s totally ruined. I can’t even see the sky anymore at night.
Sucks when you try to do astrophotography and there’s a ton of fuckin lines across your photos. Also makes general astronomy more difficult. But go off, I guess.
At least for us amateurs satellite trails get completely rejected out during image stacking. They’ll definitely be more of a problem for professional observatories, especially large survey scopes like Vera Rubin
Bruh, are you really going to prioritize a singular type of hobby photography over access to a vital service such as the internet for millions of people? That’s prime NIMBYism.
They’ve done plenty to help mitigate issues with terrestrial observatories. You could just as easily argue their rocketry advancements have made space much more accessible for the human race, which offsets any remaining harm to research telescopes.
This is an absolutely smooth-brained take. Once we fuck up our ability to go to space, that’s it. All those satellites that lift people out of poverty would become shreds of trash, and there’d be no way to get any back up there.
Furthermore, you are completely oversimplifying the ability to mitigate LEO satellite swarm’s effects on astronomy. It’s not being a NIMBY for not wanting corpos to fuck up nature. If we wanted satellite internet globally, it would be much better to make it an international endeavor.
That’s significantly less of a concern than assisting in elevating a few billion people out of poverty
Starlink has lifted people out of poverty?
The internet most assuredly has. Idk about Starlink’s performance at all outside of Ukraine.
This will not do that. That’s the entire reason they are NOT getting the money. Start thinking with your brain and stop listening to hype.
My post said:
You hate Musk, we get it. Now, try to stay on topic
Again, read the article, you utter moron. Musk is incapable of doing this, and neither is the concept itself. That has literally nothing to do with me. Stop attempting to act correct by not even making a valid point.
The concept is literally working right now.
Also, I’ve read the article. I’m not sure why you’re trying to make this chain about musk?
I imagine Amazon will be the one taking your tax dollars to do business. They famously have no money and need American tax dollars generated by working class labor in order to survive.
I have no issue with subsidizing internet for rural people, or even the global poor. That’s the point of taxes - to resolve externalities and encourage economic mobility.
Kind of neat to see Republicans trickling onto this site, ngl. Not great, but neat.
Don’t think the user you are arguing against is a republican based on their comment alone. Is the Lib take that we should let the private sector profit off of space to the point that we end up with Kessler Syndrome?
If I can’t have 50 options for gigabit internet so my tax dollars can line another billionaire’s pockets, then what’s the point?
Republicans historically so not want to use their tax money to provide for the “undeserving” both locally and globally.
If he’s not opposed to his tax dollars being used in such a way, and instead opposes technology advances as a whole, one wonders why he would be in a technology community
Replace references to space and internet with nature and oil drilling and your arguments sound indistinguishable from republicans.
Yes if you change words in a sentence you can make sentences mean different things. That is indeed how words work.
deleted by creator