• @Thorry84@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    163
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    While the general message of this meme is true, almost none of the internet actually goes through satellites. There are huge cables all around the world connecting the whole thing. And while launching rockets and deploying satellites is really cool, I think ocean crossing cables are impressive all on their own. Imagine a cable not only long and strong enough to cross an ocean, but also resting on the ocean floor, exposed to the environment and expected to work for decades. And to think the first of these cables was deployed back in 1858.

      • @cogman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        421 year ago

        We have high speed Internet here in bumfuck… But yes, statistically Billy is likely a dumbfuck if he lives here.

        • Bo7a
          link
          fedilink
          301 year ago

          You might be bumfuck-nowhere-adjacent. But if you have DSL, fiber, or cable, you are not in bumfuck nowhere.

          -Sent through my solar powered starlink connection from actual bumfuck nowhere. Where power lines don’t even exist.

          • ares35
            link
            fedilink
            14
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            i’m in the outskirts of bumfuck. there’s areas here with maximum dsl speeds under 1 mbit/sec. which the telco naturally sells at a higher price than the 40-60 mbit dsl in other parts of town because it’s the only wireline service available in those neighborhoods (cable’s ridiculously-priced service is their only competitor otherwise, but they don’t cover every part of town)

        • Flying SquidM
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Maybe in some parts, but HughesNet and Starlink wouldn’t exist if they didn’t have people using them.

          • @Thorry84@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            Well Starlink is yet to turn a profit, so I’m not sure it has any place to actually exist. I think it’s mostly there to fill up the SpaceX launch schedule. Especially since the Starlink stuff de-orbits in like 3 years, so they have to keep on launching.

            • @Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Starling satellites have motors, and regularly boost their altitude to help overcome atmospheric drag. That figure is from when the satellite either runs out of fuel, or shuts down.

              • @Thorry84@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes this helps with positioning and orbital decay. Almost every satellite has this, it isn’t special to Starlink stuff. I know Elon makes it sound like they’ve invented the wheel here, but much of what they do has been done in one way or another.

                There are a couple of factors which impact the lifespan of these satellites:

                • Technological progression. As they refine the technology and techniques they need to update the satellites with the latest and greatest. This means of course removing the old satellite and replacing it with a new one. Especially in the early days (now) this is a huge factor in replacing their stuff.
                • Failure rates. This is mostly due to radiation, but may also be due to other factors. The network is only as good as its nodes, so failing nodes need to be replaced fast. Radiation hardening is expensive and usually adds weight. This is a trade off between launch costs, the number of satellites they can fit in a Falcon 9 and lifespan of the stuff. Things like solar storms can have a huge impact, as Starlink found out the hard way.
                • Fuel consumption. Exact positioning is important for Starlink and with their VLEO orbits drag is a big factor. The satellite have very cool engines that help them stay in place, but only a limited fuel supply. There is a safe minimum fuel as regulation requires them to de-orbit safely, which takes a lot of fuel. So just running it till it’s empty is a no go, they need a good safety margin. They also don’t want to start any kind of Kessler syndrome kind of deal, so old spots need to be cleared out before new stuff can go in.

                There are other factors, but these are the big ones. Starlink say they are aiming for a total replacement every 5 years, but in practice it’s more like 3 years. This is mainly due to the first batches being more prototype like, getting nearer to a final design recently.

                With the proposed 11.000 unit constellation and the 5 year replacement rate, they would need more than 1 Falcon 9 launch each week. The costs are literally astronomical and the revenue has been only a fraction of what Elon sold the investors. I would be surprised if the plug is pulled on the whole Starlink thing.

                People seem to think Starlink is the first and only one to try this, but it has been tried for decades and almost all have failed. The only success is with companies targeting niches, where there is little to no competition and premium rates can be had. For example reporters in the field broadcasting from a van to a satellite to be live on TV was a big niche. So far Starlink hasn’t delivered on a lot of the promises made by Elon and is destined to fail unless something big changes.

                • @Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  I didn’t realize the sats had such a short lifespan, I thought it was closer to eight years.

                  Although, there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who are potential customers, and I’ve spoken to a few people who either are, or plan to be, a customer. I do think the market exists.

    • @pipe01@lemmy.pipe01.net
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      I guess the point still stands, I’m sure you need to account for the circumference of the earth when laying those cables

    • @Emi621@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      371 year ago

      It does, having all the humanity knowledge in your pocket is amazing and you can learn a lot which people do use to learn and get smarter. Sadly not everyone uses it that way and some just refuse to learn but that’s just loud minority (I hope).

      • NegativeLookBehind
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        I would argue that it’s contributed to the collective stupidity of humanity on a global scale. It’s had a lot of positive impacts as well, of course. I guess the negative ones just seem more palpable.

        • @SeekPie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          231 year ago

          Maybe the internet has shown us people that were already dumb but we just didn’t have a way of knowing they exist?

          • NegativeLookBehind
            link
            fedilink
            71 year ago

            Yes, but now stupid people can easily collaborate with other stupid people, amplifying the echo-chamber-circle-jerk on a global, nearly instantaneous level. Furthering the stupid at a never before seen rate.

        • LinkOpensChest.wav
          link
          fedilink
          121 year ago

          Has it, though? I grew up in the 80s, and I feel like I simply didn’t have a clue how ignorant people were or what batshit things people believed behind closed doors. Even when people disclosed to me their inner narrative, I feel like I just assumed they were joking or using extreme hyperbole.

          The internet has made me realize … they weren’t joking. At all. They really believe that shit.

          • @averagedrunk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            I’m approximately your age. I assumed the same thing. Hell, I thought crazy conspiracy theories were just people pretending “What if…” together.

            In my younger days I would have been on a lot of bandwagons just to joke about the people who “didn’t get the joke”. It turns out I was the one that didn’t get it.

      • @SnuggleSnail@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        I would look at it from a different angle. Before the internet you had to have a lot of knowledge in different areas to be able to sound and behave smart, and also to make good choices.

        Now you have knowledge readily available everywhere and there is much less incentive to learn things you don’t currently need, just to have it available in case you talk to someone about this topic.

        This has become even more evident with AI, where you don’t have to skim through a lot of context to find your information, you just ask what you need and it is presented the way you need it right away.

  • faceless
    link
    fedilink
    311 year ago

    internet is mostly below or at ground level. we have underwater cables for international internet.

    • r00ty
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      I thought it was implying he was in some hard to reach location, and they were pulling the stops out to connect the last guy on earth without internet.

  • Storm
    link
    fedilink
    281 year ago

    I honestly don’t understand how people can think the Earth is flat in 2023. You can see it for yourself. Go to the coast of a sufficiently large body of water, and try holding a ruler up to the horizon.

    • @gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      I think at this point, it’s more a lifestyle and less a theoretical argument.

      Yes, a flat earth doesn’t stand up against science. But also, for most people it doesn’t make a difference in their day-to-day life. So they have little to no incentive to ever tackle that notion.

    • GladiusB
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      It not flat! It’s concave! Flippin sheeple. Do your research!

      /s

    • @Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      I wish I had thought of this when I was growing up on the coast. How long would the ruler need to be to see the effect?

    • darcy
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      anyone who unironically says they believe in flat earth is a fed

    • @Evilsmiley@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      271 year ago

      I’ve seen them say that things fall “because of density”.

      Like we fall down because we are heavier than air.

      Like they think they’ve avoided the problem but they haven’t.

    • r00ty
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      Wake up sheeple! Gravity is an obvious lie from the NWO illuminati lizard people! We’re actually all implanted with small steel sheets in our feet at birth, and everything on the planet has a small amount of iron filings in too. The flat disc we live on is completely magnetic. That’s how we don’t fall off.

      I thought everyone knew this!

      • @Sanyanov@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        I remember a guy arguing that flat Earth is constantly accelerated upwards on God’s will, and never reaches speed of light due to Einstein relativism. Was quite fun to listen to this unusual fusion

      • @marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        That “forward” would be upwards? In does that people acknowledge relativity, but won’t accept geometry or gravitation?

        • @Klear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          If you look into it, you’ll realise the underlying theory quite obviously came to be when someone very smart tried to figure out how could a flat earth work without throwing all physics out of the window. It’s actually pretty neat. There are obviously details that can be tested for and the model disproven, but it does account for a lot. IIRC the basis is that the flat Earth is constantly accelerating at 1g, which provides gravity. Per theory of relativity you can accelerate at a constant rate for an arbitrary length of time, so that works. I think stuff such as phases of the Moon etc are also accounted for, though I don’t remember the details of that.

          Really, people get too caught up in finding holes in the model when the most obvious flaw is that the whole thing requires tens of thousand people at least all knowingly covering this up without getting anything out of it. But if you look at it as a thought experiment, not an attempt to describe the reality, you’ll find that it’s really pretty cool. Or, it was cool, before idiots started to actually believe it.

    • DarkenLM
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      If the disk had the thickness of Earth’s diameter and through some black magic fuckery made it so that only the mass directly below you affected the force of gravity on you, then yes.

      It’s probably easier to make an FTL engine than to make any sense of flat earth theories.

      • LostXOR
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        There’s probably some distribution of mass that would result in uniform gravity across the whole disk. I’m guessing there would need to be more mass near the edge to counteract the diagonal pull of the mass near the center on the area near the edge.

        • DarkenLM
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          The problem is that in a flat plane with any amount of thickness, there will be always more mass diagonally than vertically, and it would still require a curve to evenly distribute the mass. I am by no means an expert on the matter, but from what I can recall, the only geometrical shape that allows for it is either a sphere or some complex hyperbolic curve, which is still not a plane.

          • kase
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            the only geometrical shape that allows for it is either a sphere or some complex hyperbolic curve, which is still not a plane.

            Damn that’s too bad. It’d be really cool if the earth was shaped like a plane. /s