this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
1046 points (98.8% liked)

Political Memes

9357 readers
1677 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 38 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Starlink should 100% exist in some form or another, but it replacing terrestrial landline internet is madness. We can and should absolutely do both things.

[–] Joeffect@lemmy.world 29 points 5 days ago (1 children)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/starlink-astronomers-light-pollution-standoff-120000884.html?guccounter=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

I disagree that we should haphazardly be putting more stuff into space than needed... when we have alternatives...

Just because we can doesn't mean we should...

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 17 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Kessler syndrome doesn't apply because the orbits are too low to be stable. They have a finite shelf life before they deorbit, after which they'll burn in the atmosphere. Admittedly, the light pollution is a real problem, but one which should be solved by building more orbital telescopes, not by avoiding building orbital infrastructure.

[–] cabillaud@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

"building orbital telescopes"

Do you realize the cost of these things? And how much can be achieved with normal telescopes for a fraction of this cost? It's like saying we won't build bridges anymore because we have planes.

E: grammar, a little bit

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

Orbital telescopes are also far more powerful and useful than terrestrial telescopes, because they don't need to look through the atmosphere.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago

Kessler syndrome does still apply. There could be runaway collisions and impassable debris in low earth orbit for 5-10 years before enough of it burns up, putting all that metal into the atmosphere.

[–] DJDarren@sopuli.xyz 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Starlink should have been a global effort, so that we didn't end up with dozens of private companies all vying to put thousands of satellites into orbit.

what you're describing is called a "technical standard", it allows things to work together instead of each company shipping its own, private implementation.