this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
1194 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

66353 readers
4485 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because building space ports and rocket launches have 0 impact as well.

But you acknowledge this, so what's your point? Why pay a techno billionaire when we can publicly fund cables way cheaper and more friendly?

[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

Oh I'm all for Musk to eat shit. I was arguing that satellites are better, not starlink in particular. Lemmy seems to have issues separating their (valid) hate for muskrat with some of his companies or related technologies. And OP was arguing that cell towers are an improvement over satellites? Wth

Why can't we have a publicly funded satellite constellation?

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

How are satellites better if they will never be faster? Do we just accept life in 300ms latency? We will always need better communication so it makes no sense to invest into inferior product even if it's more accessible currently.

Unless quantum communication becomes real thing nothing will match fiber and cell towers in the foreseeable future.

Sat is a fringe technology for war and extreme remote areas, everything else is already solved.

[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

for war and extreme remote areas, everything else is already solved.

Yes and if you read carefully my answers you'll see that my arguments were all related to this, not the "normal case"

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

And my OP clearly stated that sat has uses but it's compleyely overhyped otherwise. So I'm not sure what are you even talking about here if not just goal post moving.

[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 hours ago

Clarify where I did goal post moving

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

It's has its place for sure.

But the physics are far more against satalite.

But the reason I don't believe in large scale satalite systems for consumers is because they're disposable. They all fall down or contribute to the growing space junk problem.

So it's not really any better at the end of the day than just burying a fibre cable for 40 years.