SpaceX was launching a modest % of the LEO constellation but after the Blue Origin failure, SpaceX is the only launch provider who can fill that gap and actually let LEO deliver on contracted time.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm no Musk sycophant though I do love SpaceX and Starlink. I want us to have multiple providers of super cheap space launch capabilities and multiple diverse LEO satellite constellations (3-4 on a global scale makes sense I think?).
I'm sure BlueOrigin will get there some day and I'm sure LEO will get there too (maybe even in the 2028 window if they expand their SpaceX launch partnership).
The biggest competitor to Starlink is, ironically, traditional fiber.
When COVID hit, I knew a lot of engineers who decided to move to rural areas / small farms, because they could leverage Starlink to work remotely.
Last year, when I asked whether they still liked Starlink, all of them said it was amazing, but they had gotten fiber coverage in their area from a local provider, so they don't use it anymore, or just use it as a backup.
I think Starlink was a huge demand signal that there were people willing to pay a premium for faster-than-radio internet. So, unless they manage to be cheaper and faster than fiber, I don't think there is much of an endgame there.
Starlink isn’t for areas served by fiber, it’s for areas that do not have have good Internet access available, which are far larger than the area served by fiber.
Starlink isn’t for areas served by fiber it’s for areas that don’t have have good Internet access available, which are far larger than the area served by fiber.
This has been happening with Video Games for a while. There is a major initiative called "Stop Killing Games" which was triggered when Ubisoft bricked "The Crew" when servers were shutdown.
This is much worse. The Crew was always framed as an 'always online' game, even if that was technically a farce. This would be more like if Bethesda rolled out an update to cripple Skyrim after releasing a new Elder Scrolls game to lackluster sales.
If this removes people’s access to products (software licenses count as products here) someone payed fir once. Then you should only be allowed to do that if you enable people to continue using the product.
Releasing the server code should be a requirement. Software updates shouldn’t be required. Unless the product has a moment where it will stop functioning on the hardware it was build for built in (such as an expiring certificate).
The movement explicitly DOESNT want to force companies to keep their servers running. It is singularily concerned with keeping games playable in some form after shutdown. Be it via patching out the requirement on a server, providing a way to host it yourself or any other option, really.
No. It's not a physical good that is subject to wear and tear. There is no excuse for a single player game to have a lifespan because it has some pointless online verification component.
Because I think it's good for software developers and consumers for people to have the flexibility to sell something that depends on online services which may become unavailable at some point in the future. This is more valuable than requiring indefinite support, public pluggable backends, or required open sourcing or backend redistribution, which imposes onerous technical or business limitations for an extremely minor consumer benefit all things considered.
> The bottleneck in fixing bugs like these is the human capacity to triage, report, and design and deploy patches for them. Finding them in the first place has become vastly more straightforward with Mythos Preview.
This has always been the bottleneck. Automated tools love to flag vulnerabilities, but almost all are false positives. These need to be triaged and evaluated by humans.
This is okay. I’d rather close a false positive after a careful review than miss it altogether.
I don’t think it’s appropriate for calling out humans as a bottleneck. They are an essential part of the process, I’m sure Mythos will also become a catalyst in the process.
It is definitely not the case that human remediation was the bottleneck for most vulnerability eradication 10 years ago. Proving out vulnerabilities was much harder than resolving them.
There’s nothing to be reminded of. English has a word to describe North and South America together (“the Americas”). Other languages have different words for the same concept.
It’s like reminding someone they shouldn’t say “bicycle” but should instead say “fahrrad”.
The USAians are largely seemingly already convinced the name of their country starts with an A, those that live elsewhere generally have better geography chops, so you're correct - it's unlikely any minds will change.
We have a similar thing on this side of the Atlantic where people argue about whether it is acceptable to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as "Britain". I feel it is, as an abbreviation, and it is my preferred abbreviation, along with "GB", because I like to look forward to the time when we won't have a monarchy any more and I therefore don't like the abbreviation "UK", and also, despite not having any strong Irish connections, I tend to feel that Ireland ought to be reunited. This may seem like the opposite of my opinion on the US/America question, where I prefer "US", and I suppose it is, but I have my reasons!
I am quite surprised no one is bothered by the fact that the name is that of a colonialist and slave trader (he personally took part is slave raiding).
Apart from The Economist, I don't know anyone who says "the Americas".
If you asked a random person what Columbus discovered, what would they answer? Round here I think most people would say that Columbus discovered America. By landing in San Salvador and then Cuba.
By the way, I don't strongly object to people using "America" as an abbreviation for "The United States of America" in contexts in which it is obvious that a country is being referred to, and "American" is even less objectionable in an appropriate context. At the same time, "American" obviously doesn't mean "of or pertaining to the USA" if someone is talking about "American species of conifer" or "American dialects of Spanish" or "American tortilla recipes".
> If you asked a random person what Columbus discovered, what would they answer? Round here I think most people would say that Columbus discovered America. By landing in San Salvador and then Cuba.
Do they actually know where he landed? I think that other than your Columbus example it would be very rare for people to say "America" to mean either or both continents.
Most people I know would say America for the US, North America, South America, or the Americas as appropriate. when referring to the continents.
Other than The Economist's usage, "The Americas" is used by other publications and books, its the name of a TV series, its the title of most wikipedia articles relating to the two continents.
That's certainly an interesting idea - mostly everybody should know someone who has a gmail account, so if you get a couple invites a month, that should be plenty and the setup would
Well I was about to say destroy scammers, but I just realized that they would send out spam to places where you could gamble your invites for Real Cash(TM) or just straight up buy them.
This would lower the creation of accounts, but then they would be rarer and worth more to spammers, since a spamming gmail would be rare.
And we would hear sob stories of people getting their accounts closed for inviting spammers.
Not without some kind of delay function and probably filtering/evaluation of which new accounts get this capability...
Everyone here should be familiar with exponential growth of n-ary trees. If you can get one of these accounts and each new invitee gets to invite 2 more, you can already have accounts gone wild.
So, the scammer should send an invite to a real person from one percent of the accounts in the tree, wait a few months, then flip the evil bit on 90-95% of the accounts they registered. If the whole tree is cut off the reputational damage is really high (10,000 valid users nuked because of actions other accounts took...)
Not really, even "legit" marketing providers have massive automation rigs to warm email addresses, make them behave naturally and email each other in rings for a bit before using them for cold outreach.
So they'd just do this to farm invites if they needed
For example, the Australian government has selected Project Kepler (now called Amazon Leo) to provide broadband services to the Australian Outback.
https://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/media-centre/...
And geopolitical shenanigans in Ukraine with Musk and Starlink means that it may not be a reliable partner.
reply