Urban light pollution has several orders of magnitude greater effect than all of the megaconstellations will have combined. The vast majority of the time, the satellites will be totally invisible to the naked eye except at times close to dawn and dusk (and even then, only the satellites making a transition will be visible). Light pollution on the other hand can make the vast majority of stars totally invisible, as well as making objects like the Milky Way disappear. Anyone wishing to improve our view of the stars should be spending all of their time on things such as fixing wasteful and polluting street lighting. Megaconstellations are an utterly negligible threat in comparison.
Starlink at least has nothing to do with that. Instead, it’s about providing good service to those without adequate access at all (such as the Hoh tribe). People that already have reasonable connections aren’t going to see anything improve or have lower prices.
An “unregulated commons” is the same as “unrestricted access,” and so is different from the historical and political and social use of the idea. It is true that some economists use it for ideological purposes to suggest that “altruism can’t work,” but that’s different.
The analogy might be to the term Luddite, which is often used to mean “grandpa can’t figure out the remote again!” but is also employed to mean “don’t be a weenie like those 19th century peasants who were afraid of power looms, just embrace this new technology without questioning it,” while historically Luddites were already using the world’s most advanced technology and smashed looms because they feared unemployment, not technology. The commons is held in common, and regulated in some fashion; allowing unrestricted access to the commons requires destroying that control and regulation, and usually means state intervention to “allow” private capital to take what was formerly held in common.
As one poem puts it,
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who takes things that are yours and mine.
The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.
All of this to say, it is useful to define our terms before we talk politics, but of course that’s not how it works, as we all come into discussions with ideas and concepts and language already formed. And many of those ideas and concepts and language are developed and taught to support the status quo, that is to say, private property and the state, for the benefit of a few
Yes, and the commons in “tragedy of the commons” has a specific idiomatic meaning that isn’t necessarily reflective of how real-world commons behave. Stranger_On_A_Train used the phrase correctly, even if I disagree about this being an example. If the users of a commons develops a set of management policies to ensure equitable access (with some means of enforcement), then it is no longer a commons in the sense it’s used in the phrase.
Sure; also, implying that private property is the only possible management system would also be an invalid argument. However, it’s correct to conclude that if a commons is functioning, then it must not be completely unregulated. There are many ways to regulate. The most appropriate choice depends on scale and other factors.
They don’t seem to have any actual arguments, so they’ve turned to mudslinging. They are so desperate to slow down SpaceX that they have to bring Tesla and Musk’s Twitter account into the mix. There are some flat-out lies as well, such as the claim that SpaceX has built an unapproved launch tower (SpaceX is not yet allowed to use the tower for a launch, but they were certainly allowed to build it).
Amazon’s only gripe that actually relates to Starlink is their claim that their submission of two mutually exclusive proposals to the FCC violates the rules. It’s obviously not against the rules to submit proposals to the FCC, unless perhaps they were utterly frivolous. It’s up to the FCC to decide whether the proposals are valid or not. If not, they’ll be denied and SpaceX will have to try again. This doesn’t seem likely since the FCC doesn’t seem to actually prohibit multiple proposals, but regardless, no rules are actually being broken.
Aside from this, it’s an utterly laughable argument coming from Amazon. A company that, if the rules aren’t to their liking, pays an army of lobbyists to rewrite them.
What is also clear is that Musk is, as they say, living rent-free inside Bezos’ head.
Good luck! From your profile, it looks like you’re in rural Oregon. Coverage should be very good there. Depending on where you are, I think the biggest risk would be if your cell is already full. Assuming your view to the south is open.
@enipla is correct. My view needs to be clear to the north. And I just learned today that Starlink isn’t an option for me. Too many tall fir trees surround my abode. I’d have to log about 200 trees for an unobscured view mostly to the north. I’m not ready to do that.
Too bad, because I had really hoped for Starlink. It’s starting to look like my best option is to simply upgrade my current south-facing satellite service.
If Starlink is a danger to humanity, I won’t be contributing to it.
I also have a LOT of big fir trees. 80 footers. I installed the dish on a ridge on my roof line. It points about 10 degrees north. So not at a 40 degree angle or so (depending on you latitude) at all like a geosynchronous dish needs.
That’s fine. I am gone this weekend, though. And waiting for My Wife to get home. So, I may not see it right away. And I’ve never done PM with Discourse site. But send a PM and I’ll be happy to respond.
My bad. I certainly should have recalled that. The non-polar Starlink satellites are currently at an inclination of 53°, and the density will be highest at that latitude due to the nature of orbits. So it’s likely that the best connection will be pointing north somewhat for most of the US.
It’s going to be different when all the satellites are up. Some will be in a 70° inclination, and the polar shell (at 97.6°) will be filled out a bit more. At a certain point, it will make sense to just point where you have the best visibility of the sky.
Hopefully you can find some means of getting above the trees. Otherwise, it may just be a matter of waiting a few years.
