News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by mulmen on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:36PM (#25338650)
My disagreement with these arguments is not around what gets prioritized. I disagree with the fundamental premise that we have to pick at all. Human civilization is not single threaded. We can absolutely colonize Mars while solving global warming. In fact I can even imagine ways in which colonizing Mars can help solve global warming.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by bumby on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:42PM (#25338720)
While I'm generally in favor of what SpaceX is doing, I don't think your point holds up in any sort of constrained environment. Could there be a marginal (or even reasonable) tangential benefit to other industries? Of course, but not as much as if those industries were the primary focus to begin with.

With limited resources, you have to prioritize or else you can run the risk of being spread so thin nothing is adequately funded so nothing really gets accomplished. You can't fight a war on all fronts, all the time.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by mulmen on Monday December 07, 2020 @06:10PM (#25339029)
Again, I disagree with the framing. Colonizing Mars and global warming are not wars, they are opportunities. There are countless ways humans can spend their time and energy but none of them exist in a vacuum. Progress anywhere is progress everywhere.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by bumby on Monday December 07, 2020 @07:18PM (#25339696)
>they are opportunities

I mean, defense contractors look at hot wars as opportunities as well. And they do drive technology forward, perhaps even more than any other force in this discussion. But that's not to say they don't have negative externalities that shouldn't be ignored.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by chillacy on Monday December 07, 2020 @06:08PM (#25339015)
What you're saying is true but I don't believe humans to be in any kind of "constrained environment" if more people can work on ad delivery and social media marketing than space exploration and environmental engineering combined.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by bumby on Monday December 07, 2020 @07:07PM (#25339583)
>I don't believe humans to be in any kind of "constrained environment"

I probably didn't do a good job of explaining that I meant "constrained environment" in the operations research sense. Everything rooted in the real world is constrained. Why don't we each take a private jet to work everyday? Because we're constrained on money. If we're not constrained on money, we're constrained on time. If it's not that, we're constrained by the amount of carbon we can release and still have a reasonably favorable environment for humans.

One of the reasons the Space Shuttle became somewhat of a boondoggle was because of this. They had a constrained budget but had to meet the demands of multiple, often competing, stakeholders. Musk knows this; he knows that NASA has constraints he doesn't. He doesn't have to spread his facilities across multiple States to help ensure support from as many Congress people as possible. He doesn't have to expose himself to the same level of political risk that can change every four years. He can optimize under a different set of constraints, but it would be a mistake to assume he's unconstrained.