823
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
823 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
87147 readers
3205 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Wait so you're saying the ships, just the ships moving across the pacific are enough reason to have low earth orbit satellites in such quantity they impede things as simple as looking at the stars? The ships can get internet from higher earth orbit satellites that don't have to be constantly replaced. We haven't been choosing between internet and no internet with starlink, there has been satallite internet way before starlink and there will be way after. All it takes is a less cooperative FAA not allowing so many rocket launches for the AI nazi company and slowly holes form in the coverage as the satellites burn up.
No, I'm saying that the ships would like it. Also having used geosynchronous satellite internet I have first hand experience that the lag sucks. Better than nothing, but Starlink has less lag. Probably faster but I don't know what the latest speeds are. Still geosynchronous covers a lot of area which means you are sharing with a lot of people.
Cruise ships pay a lot for internet because their customers want it. Crew on all ships want it for their breaks.
Starlink isn't worth it for just the above, but add in rural people on land and it makes sense. Though I understand the astronomers hate it.
I'll be short with you.: I don't care how much nicer starlink is, putting that many satellites into low earth orbit all the time is not good for the climate. The few thousand people on ships at any given time can wait to stream high def porn or download it while at port. All the needed uses of the internet can be met via slow higher orbiting satellites.
Lots of things are not necessary and are bad for the climate. You likely enjoy many of them. You start by reducing your own consumption.
God, if this isn't the most "Fuck You!" reply you could've made
Frankly its just about as much as anyone should care
Ohmmy's comment is essentualy "its bad for the envirement" (as if its not true for everything) and "they should just deal with it as is" as an attempt to shutdown the arguement
I very much dont see how it would have continued any other way (excludeing a few roundabouts)
Sometimes the best alternative is nothing at all
High speed internet from constantly decaying satellites is not necessary.
Its by delibarate choice
Increase the orbit by a bit and it quickly goes from about 5 years to decades and decades for reentry
The entire point is that they will be replaceing them that often anyways, may as well get some other benefits