Yeah, it sure can do it in a way nobody else can, the most wasteful way. But I appreciate you shifting the goalposts from Ukraine because being used in war is a reason why it is a bad ISP. See, if a war breaks out and a power can destroy them, we’re talking global breakdown of internet via starlink. If a war breaks out on the other side of the world a traditional isp keeps working.

Then there’s also the piss poor service, the poor number of total connections, the lack of redundancy, the cost, the ecological damage of launching rockets every week so that someone is the middle of nowhere can jack it with high speed internet, being disabled when a nazi feels like it…

Lol “Starlink is a bad ISP” “BuT wHaT aBoUt Ukraine!!?!?!?!?” “Mostly irrelevant to this conversation” A true lemmy experience.

I love how you completely ignore how starlink is only viable for ukraine because the US military industrial complex.

There was satellite internet before Starlink and Starlink should be banned for all the 5ghz interference it creates

This is a really weird “ends always justify the means” because I could also say it wouldn’t be necessary if Ukraine never gave up their nuclear weapons and how I doubt the Ukrainians would disagree. This is also further impacted by the protection of Starlink by the US military because if it wasn’t an act of war against the US to destroy them, Russia could take down low earth orbit satellites pretty easily.

But none of this is relevant to how Starlink is not an ISP, it is not infrastructure it is a fleeting wasteful service.

Those places can get internet from satellites outside of low earth orbit that is simply slower with higher latency.

The main problem is that starlink is not a viable ISP like Comcast. Relying on low earth orbit is extremely wasteful as you need to constantly launch more and more satellites. Starlink gives their satellites a 5 year lifespan where fiber can go on for 40 years or more. There are 7,500 starlink satellites, so we’re talking a constant replacement of satellites all falling into earth’s atmosphere, not being recycled.

Starlink is literal space trash waiting to happen.

Piracy has never been theft because nothing is missing. It’s not stealing or theft if someone takes a picture of my shoes and makes their own because I still have shoes.

I thought it was called capitalism.

I’m not in academia, but I’m pretty sure research papers are usually part of the job for many professors, and they are paid for those jobs. Research students get stipends (money) to live off of while doing research and publishing their work. So, money is supporting those efforts as well, right?

You don’t get paid for your research papers being published, it’s required in may fields but it isn’t something you get paid for. Stipends are not money to live off, in most cases you barely get by. So no, money is not supporting those efforts, it’s literally corporations taking the labor of researchers and making money off it.

I’m not in support of having to pay for quality information being the way, but it is the way right now. There are people that refuse to pay for journalism, some saying because it restricts access to quality information to those that can’t afford it, but I posit boycotting paying for journalism is having a net negative effect on quality information getting into anyone’s hands, including those that don’t have the means to pay for it.

Who are you shadowboxing here? I’m simply agreeing that information SHOULD be free and you clearly agree.

That doesn’t really address their point, that’s simply a motte and bailey. Limiting access to information (knowledge/education) on a basis of payment is a hindrance of lower classes not upper classes. We especially see this with academic publishing and the people writing those papers aren’t even paid for it usually.

You shouldn’t have to pay for the journalist or the transmission, similarly to education it is best for a society (especially a democracy) if information is freely accessible regardless of one’s finances.

You might. 🏴‍☠️

No, we miss abortions in this neighborhood, brother.

Not like coffee. Your average person simply can’t consume coffee beyond the average at any meaningful rate. We both know that internet usage can go from close to nothing to 100TB of data depending on the user.

Internet isn’t like coffee, it’s not that simple.

That simply isn’t true, the costs are small and arguably negligible but they do have increased costs on more data usage.

ISPs have real costs too

I completely disagree that it is a decent metaphor. Unlike coffee, internet data usage is entirely nebulous to mostly everyone outside of the tech sphere. The metaphor serves as a way of misrepresenting a widespread ignorance for a fundamental understanding.

If we wanted a decent metaphor we’d have to compare data usage to something like health insurance. Well you see, you pay for your rate of coverage at these visits per year but also have to pay your deductible that might or might not be used off routine…

In the end if we want to simplify internet expense it is this: ISPs charge way more than they need to and search for ways to charge more to maximize profits without improving service.

Pretty much everything does, even your car will and I would totally download a car if I could.

You know you’re a POS when a piracy community cheers for copyright lawsuits

Many will recommend you use Stremio instead. You’ll probably want to use a VPN depending on your region though.

Never ask a company to pick between the right thing and profit. It was all a matter of time till Google needed to stop growing and start producing profit for investors.

To make it worse the Pixel 9 starts at $800 just like iPhone. So if you’re buying Android you don’t really save money over an iPhone like you used to.