So they were sabotaging nasa for all those years before SpaceX was a thing for what reason?

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...

The post title starts with “we”, which means everyone, it doesn’t limit those involved to one country.

There's already NASA which gets piss poor funding iirc

Yes, and the post title is just the title of the article

I’m just saying it wouldn’t hurt to make things clear when posting the article link to a global website.

you genuinely don't care that critical national infrastructure - literally our ability to put stuff into orbit - is compromised by this penny ante shitbird. I get it, fanboys don't use logic.

Sure thing sport. I must be a tankie lol. You toolbag

There is no such thing as something being "globalized" The UN for instance is a debating club where the majority of the seats represent individual dictators who dominate but do not speak for their countries citizens.

The idea of 50 countries collectively providing 0% of the funds should determine the mission is somewhat laughable. Also no country on earth has a process by which foreign dictators can seize or direct a company run out of their nation.

Such an effort would be likely to fail AND take longer than the current administration is likely to exist.

A strawman is when somebody mischaracterize an argument, calling someone a tankie is not that.

No, we should regain control of our nation from fascists (this does not mean just replace the President), then nationalize SpaceX and Starlink, and make telecoms public utilities.

I don't like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you're asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We've always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they're deemed important? If that's the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what's stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.

There's a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that's quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they're only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they're our entire industry. The company's stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.

SpaceX is a private business that's stable, reliable, and competitive. They're doing exactly what they're supposed to. It's easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I'm in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.

I don't think what I'm saying is controversial.

No I would not like taxpayer dollars to buy out Elons shit shows.

Hard pass. Thanks no thanks jacobin

Ukrainians didn't want to be under Russian rule.

The Secretary General Nikita Khruschyov of the Soviet Union was Ukrainian... The claims of Russification of the Soviet Union are wildly exaggerated by western sources as proven by the fact that Kazakhstan is its own country with its own culture, as are Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus...

mental gymnastics you're doing to excuse Russia allying with Hitler

go ahead. Answer point by point to my comment that i showed you, I'm looking forward to that instead of vibes-based claims.

Like you can find examples of time were colonial countries """liberated""" foreign nations in much the same way, putting them under a different boot and treating them marginally better than the last guy

What's the life expectancy in Russia or China vs what is it in Indonesia or Myanmar? What's the le expectancy in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan compared to Afghanistan or Pakistan?

Where am I shifting the goalposts exactly?

"because being used in war is a reason why it is a bad ISP", like I said before, I very much doubt the Ukrainians would agree with your take on this.

"if a war breaks out and a power can destroy them, we’re talking global breakdown of internet via starlink" ??
Do you think anyone is advocating we should replace all internet connections with Starlink?

"Then there’s also the piss poor service, the poor number of total connections, the lack of redundancy, the cost," Should I copy-paste about Ukraine again?

"ecological damage" negligent amount compared to actually wasteful industries

I didn't say it was a bad thing, I wanted to know about some of the broader implications, e.g. govt ownership doesn't remove legal obligations. I doubt the govt could continue to offer service under the previous T&C, some sections would need revision. And Starlink's T&C are slightly different in some countries, as are the operating conditions. Some countries who are nominally friendly with Starlink/SpaceX to allow ground stations, POPs, etc, might not be so keen on the US govt controlling things.

These are just some of the things that popped into my head when I read the article.

Friend, the magazine this article is from is named Jacobin, after that political movement.

It is a US-based magazine, and it's not very popular, so it's understandable that you haven't heard of it. But it does pay to read the article before commenting.

Jacobin (magazine, wikipedia link)

sure thing bud. I'm not going to waste my afternoon going through your shitstream to point out how you're wrong, I simply have better things to do with my life. in fact, gonna block you now, QOL plus

I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.

no, it's simply business as usual, nothing ever changes, nothing ever improves, and fuck you america, that's the way it has to be because reasons.

I strongly suspect NASA can manage spaceX better than the ketamine kid. Why don't you give a fuck about those astronauts who have to put their faith in his hardware? why don't you give a fuck about the kids who are growing up in an age where that drug addled prick is put up as an icon of success?

Do you really think soldiers sailors and airmen (and spacemonkeys) should have to rely on that HORSE DRUG ADDICTED PRICK for their mission critical infrastructure?

If you do, fuck right off, you're either a musk fanboy or stockholder.

Either way, get bent.