After Russia brutally suppressed their independence, then sent 10 million of them off to die to protect Russians. Which you keep wilfully ignoring.

Ukrainians didn't want to be under Russian rule. It's wild the mental gymnastics you're doing to excuse Russia allying with Hitler himself to steal foreign land. So I'll say again, the fact those regions were mistreated under Poland does mean it's okay to invade them and colonise them.

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. But if a colonial apologist gave you that argument you would (rightly) not accept it, would you?

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

No, we already have NASA

You claim "Starlink is a bad ISP" because you think the satellites are wasteful, I disagree since Starlink can provide a global service to areas where it's needed in a way no one else can. I don't know what you find so difficult to understand?
"a TrUe LeMmY eXpErIeNcE"

Starlink should be globalized. A planet only needs one low-altitude orbiting communications network. Better to standardize the technology and platform and let them contribute to one system than to have a dozen identical competing systems crashing into each other and fucking things up for everyone.

What do you mean by that?

You have any links to support that it’s just cheap materials causing the failures?

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.