this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
604 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

74233 readers
4647 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DigDoug@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

I say that Emma Stone should divorce her husband and marry me instead.

[–] TomArrr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

The term "tech neutral' brings back terrible memories of the conservative Liberal successful campaign in #auspol against the #NBN (national broadband network) 😞

https://paulbudde.com/blog/nbn-ftth-broadband/the-coalitions-nbn-failure-political-sabotage-and-the-threat-of-privatisation-continues/

[–] Vile_port_aloo@lemmy.world 1 points 58 minutes ago

SpaceX should deliver the service and access at the cost given and complete before the fiber team put a shovel in that ground.

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Going from the most secure, hard wired formats to a con man's satellites would be a fatal error. Any sort of military conflict and the network is all down, atleast broadband keeps secure networks intact.

[–] BabyVi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Gotta gear up for America's century of humiliation.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, please..... give me shitty satellite internet instead of a fast fiber line...

[–] bigbabybilly@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I sure am sick of super fast, stable internet connections. Let’s all get something that fucks up when it’s cloudy.

[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 hours ago

It shouldn’t be all or nothing. It should be diversified.

Yeah, there are rural locations where Starlink makes sense but also there are a lot of urban places that it would never work in.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 29 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

One day he's gonna get assassinated and it will be a global holiday

[–] hexagon@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago

I’m going to start the celebration from now

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 13 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

You'd be instantly banned on reddit for this comment lol

[–] bigbabybilly@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Which is why I’m here and not there. It’s the internet: I hope nobody posts their hot takes! Reddit needs to lighten up. Or even better, fuck off.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

i like the alternative saying

Some make the world better by their passing, others make the world better by their passing.

it's vague and passive enough that you have plausible deniability, but the meaning is clear. plus I like the poetry of it.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

ding dong the witch is dead

[–] Fuck_u_spez_@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

That was fast.

[–] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 34 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Publicly funded fibre can be provider agnostic. Starlink can't. Unless Musk is arguing for the nationalization of Starlink, which frankly I could get behind.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 21 points 5 hours ago

We paid for it, it should be nationalized. But they only ever socialize their losses, the profits are private.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Low orbit satellites will never replace fiber because physics of latency, bandwidth and error correction.

As far as things go today well never need less fiber. Even if we cover the sky with satellites eventually we'd need to upgrade to fiber because its literally impossible to beat. Except for scifi tech like quantum entanglement networks which might not even be possible or practical and wouldn't need the satelites anyway.

As an infrastructure bet it makes absolutely zero sense except for covering rare niches like war zones or oceans.

[–] Justas@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

Fiber is like rail transport for the internet: expensive, high throughput infrastructure along a defined path. But when it's already there, it's very hard to beat.

Oh right, Musk stopped the discussion of proposed rail expansion with his Boring tunnels and Hyperloop, now he is doing the same thing to the internet.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

They’re welcome to say that, as long as their ruler doesn’t enter the political or policy arena and have the moral depravity to act despite a conflict of interest. As long as corporations don’t have undue influence on politics from lobbying or donations.

We don’t have to listen.

Our representatives should be representing us. ….. alright alright you can stop laughing now

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago

To quote Dan Harmon out of context: "If you ask a toaster, "What's the most important thing in the world?" it's going to tell you, "Bread." And if you ask a toaster its opinion of bread, it's going to tell you, "It's not toasted enough."

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago

Musk is still hitting the special K.

[–] weew@lemmy.ca 13 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

On one hand, Musk.

On the other hand... Telecos.

You can either give billions more to the world's richest asshole, or you can give billions to companies that already received that money last time and did absolutely fuckall with it.

Lose-lose

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago

I mean there is a third option: municipal fiber

But then the gub’ment is your ISP but at least it’s not making billionaires money.

I’d suggest the best case scenario to me would be a fourth option like a community run co-op of fiber to the premises and have it be grant funded. But who am I kidding, that’s almost to socialist for rural America like where I live.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

Third option: municipal fibre

[–] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

We have that here. 🥰

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

Not really. Most of the rural plans in the US are run by utilities companies that are local.

[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

Yes. Lets tie our expansion of desperately needed internet access in rural America to massively carbon emitting rocket launches. Thats definitely not gonna back fire on us.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 44 points 8 hours ago (16 children)

Except StarLink cannot possibly provide the same bandwidth, latency, and throughput a fiber connection can. Because of physics.

I can either share my 10G symmetrical connection with nobody, or with 200 others.

And, Fiber costs me $70 a month. Starlink, with worse performance, costs 4x more.

[–] utopiah@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

Because of physics.

Pfff, physics, pesky detail! Clearly you are not a true visionary like Musk! /s

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

In principle I agree with you, but as a network guy, somewhere, between you and the server you are connected to, the bandwidth is shared. The only question is just where and how much bandwidth (well network throughput) there is to share. I work for a large university and our main datacenter has 10GbE and 25/100GbE connections between all the local machines. But we only have about a 3-5gb connection out to the rest of the world.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’d 100% rather have a symmetrical fiber connection to the ISP than something shared like radio or DOCSIS. I used to live in a neighborhood where everyone had Spectrum and about 5-6 PM the speed would plummet because cable internet is essentially just fancy thinnet all over again. Yes I’m old since I used to set up thinnet :)

PS: I would kill for $70 fiber where I am now. Used to have it but we moved to the sticks and I miss it terribly.

[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 15 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It's not secure either. The next world war will involve efforts to sabotage satellites.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That's the point. Musk wants control over the entire internet.

If all the other internet infrastructure was abandoned, he would be the most powerful person in history. Want to regulate him afterwards? He could just shut down the internet in your region until you accept his terms.

[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

He has already meddled in the Ukraine war doing things like this, too. He turned off Starlink during an offensive Ukrainian mission. He claims he had to because civilian systems aren't allowed to be used for a foreign incursion into Russia and that he'd face consequences. Which is a complete lie.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 6 hours ago

"Humans should give me chicken" says Cat.

[–] PlasmaTrout@lemmy.wtf 17 points 8 hours ago

I've been WFH for at least 10 years and live in rural area. Starlink was like 150-200$ a month for an unpredictable 5-150mbps and did meh. When I finally got fiber it was sub 100$ a month for 2gbps stable. Not a hard decision :)

[–] Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago

lol. Of course it does.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago (9 children)

I’m so glad other countries are coming up with their own satellites just for the expressed interest to boycott musk.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›