Just a thought.
I work with developers in Ukraine. They’re still logging in, joining calls, etc.
I doubt that’s because they’re among the “lucky” few that got Starlink receivers.
Musk is just a really effective lying conman.
Thai submarine thing, “full self-driving,” most egregiously: rolling a stop sign at 2mph is “not running stop signs.”
But the technical things you mention, like the stop sign “rolling stop” - I think that’s a bit slippery. Where I live, 2mph is definitely considered stopping. I would not think twice about going 2mph through a stop sign, as long as that gives me enough time to evaluate whether it is safe to proceed or actually come to a complete stop. And if it bothers you that much, you could always have put it in “cautious” mode or whatever it was called.
As far as full self-driving goes, have you seen recent versions? It is seriously impressive. Still not level 3/4 SAE so I guess it’s technically a lie, but they are working hard to make it less of a lie. It would be nice if they were more upfront with their customers about what capabilities exist today, vs what they hope to achieve in the near future.
Here’s a random video of v10.10 on YouTube: https://youtu.be/1-UTGwP33DE
None of this is commentary on the underlying tech. Obviously Tesla is impressive, obviously SpaceX is impressive, obviously Musk is impressive. But none of these should absolve him/his companies/his supporters from basic obligations toward truth - especially when introducing potentially dangerous technologies to “the commons” like public roads.
And which "parts" of Ukraine would that be that don't have the view of the sky required to get Iridium, Inmarsat etc. working ?
Last time I checked, Starlink required a view of the sky too. ;-)
I have always been a little dubious about Musk. Whether bold claims about magical tunnels under cities or over-selling the abilities of cars.
But ultimately, for me the final straw was at the whole Thai cave rescue thing.
After that, I've considered him largely a marketeer when it comes to abilities to make useful contributions to world events.
Emphasis: some, not all
Use all the bold type you like, make it size 200 if it makes you feel better, but I will simply re-iterate:
Which "parts" of Ukraine would that be that don't have the view of the sky required to get Iridium, Inmarsat etc. working ?
Last time I checked, Starlink required a view of the sky too. ;-)
To be clear, my issue is not with Starlink per-se, but with the claim "the only non-Russian communications system still working" which should be taken with a significant pinch of salt as it is effectively impossible to believe.
Particularly so given the public Twitter statement made by the boss of Iridium that clearly states they are still live over Ukraine, still shipping kit to Ukraine and have no intention of doing otherwise.
I don't know whether or not normalizing such behavior is sane, especially during a kill/be-killed war scenario.
Sounds like something to take with a pinch of salt.
I find it hard to believe that Inmarsat, Iridium etc. are no longer functional in Ukraine.
Edit to add:
(a) Given all the Western journos broadcasting out of Ukraine, I think it is almost certainly a fact that Inmarsat, Iridium etc. are still functional because its kind of standard kit for warzone correspondents. All the "senior correspondents" the major news orgs are sending out to Ukraine will have cut their teeth on Inmarsat, Iridium etc., and will be comfortable with its use and operation.
(b) Twitter post from Iridium boss saying they've stopped shipments to Russia but have no intention of stopping shipments to Ukraine and/or stopping service over Ukraine. "Shutting down service over Ukraine would stop Ukrainian use and aid orgs as well."[1]
[1] https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1498847589520846854?s...