I wonder how SL plans vary in Ukraine / for use in Russia. Assuming US-like pricing and limitations, for low speed drones, this would work. The gotcha is that for jet or fast prop drones in the 250-478 kts range requires a very expensive aviation plan assuming it's similar to US plans.
Could that not also be part of the support being provided to Ukraine in that those prices are not the same as some commercial account? At the end of the day, the billing department could just not issue the bill, or any other method of meaning Ukraine isn't paying for it.
Yes, you may recall some controversy a few years back when Musk made some threats along those lines.
There are alternatives if you only need short range, or if you can tolerate high latency. And of course there are fire-and-forget cruise missiles that don't need communications at all.
But there aren't all that many other options. Historically, satellite internet companies like Iridium, Globalstar and Teledesic have not fared well.
It was only made to appear a controversy for clicks and Ukrainians (understandably) trying to bend the rules.
The thing came with a clear limit "this thing works in these cells of this big hex grid".
And they drove it off that hex grid. Plan and simple.
Its like if the US-supplied HIMARS came with some built-in limit that it cannot be used to target known Russian nuclear installments, and they'd try to do that.
It's not that those things are unquestionable, but they are limits that would need US consultation as US obviously doesn't want the thing to escalate from being a defensive war to something else.
Well, per other comments, Starlink terminals apparently do work in Russia.
And Musk did exactly that per numerous reports. Given his erratic behavior since around 2018, it's not hard to believe. The other day he was literally threatening to stop Dragon launches for NASA.
The geoblocks are quite hard. The only situation where Russians have managed to use them for a short while is when they've managed to capture a terminal, and it hasn't been cut off because it's been unclear who was in control of it, and Ukranians benefit more of them as they've built a lot of things and process around them as it such a massive battlefield advantage if used right.
>Given his erratic behavior it's not hard to believe
Congratulations, you've managed to slip in to a sea of misinformation and media spin. Place a check on this in 5 years, these things tend to be silently put under the rug. It's like you're saying it wouldn't be a surprise if all future Falcon 9 rockets just blew up because they've done so at testing and because Starship does so too. Learn some distinction.
Because the US military/govt has a say in what US companies sell to foreign militaries and that's what the restrictions were at the time. Remember this was early on in the full invasion.
Iridium works extremely well for what it was designed for – truly global, low latency communications without requiring a directional antenna. Unfortunately, that also means very low data rates.
It only gained packed-switched data with the second generation satellite network, but data rates are still very low (think hundreds of kbps, and I believe even that needs high-gain antennas).
~Iridium~ devices were bricked in the first days of the invasion, iirc. That's why starlink was such a big deal, and that's why the usmil wanted it "yesterday" after it proved itself in ua. They had to set up a dedicated unit to deal with starlink, as every branch was trying to get it on their own and complicated purchasing. That unit / project was also called starshield, confusing the matter with the other starshield project that uses starlink buses + ng sensor packages.
edit: it was Viasat not Iridium, I got them mixed up.
Interesting how the US goes absolutely ballistic about some random dude violating the "Computer Security Act" on a small scale, but didn't react at all to this massive, incredibly impactful, attack.
it didn't impact Americans. it impacted us Europeans but at the time this went down we were too dependent on Russia's cheap gas (and, frankly, lacked the military power) to raise the appropriate level of stink.
Hell we let Russia freely execute dissidents (Skripal or the Berlin Tiergarten murder come to my mind) and tolerated a land-grab war by little green men in 2014. Either of these actions would have warranted serious consequences, the Crimea/Donbas grab would be a casus belli if you ask me. But again, we were too busy sucking Putin off for cheap gas.
The US does not want to go to full scale, open war with Russia.
So the US will downplay or ignore some amount of aggression from Russia to do so.
If the US wanted to go to war with Russia, we would be playing up some rather minor thing, like sending a missile system into "Europe" or something.
When that Ukrainian SAM fell in Poland and killed a farmer, there was a late night emergency meeting between a lot of very important people from NATO countries to decide WTF to do. If the west wanted to fight Russia, that meeting would have resulted in an Article 5 declaration of some sort.
Russia is behind the sabotage/blowing up of a Czech Republic arms depot. If the west wanted to go to war with Russia, that could have also been an instigating event.
Russia will continue to get passes for "minor" acts of war as long as the west does not agree with sending citizens to die in a war.
That we don't equip Ukraine with more than enough war material to do whatever they are capable of, however, is fucking stupid.
"Some" is an understatement lol. Here in Germany 3.800 (!) wind turbines lost remote control (and thus were forced offline) until the terminals could be changed because their command uplink was via Viasat.
I am not sure - afaik there is a speed limit (assumption of satellite visibility and specific latency?) over which starlink won’t work, right?
It can however be useful for getting the internet without announcing yourself to a swarm of drones?
If you have actual feedback on the points go ahead. If you even opened the link, It contains sources. What I wrote, I wrote from memory as I've read plenty of articles and first-party takes while fighting stupid misinformation on this specific issue so much, and just added the fact check as I think that is doing a lot more than 90% of commenters.
Replying (trolling?) in the lines of just "lol AI stupid" isn't helpful or aiming towards anyone being better informed.
Note I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's not considered anywhere reliable enough for a "fact check". At best it's "some sources that chatgpt turned up that I have to manually check myself". I'll admit that human written "fact checks" aren't exactly foolproof either (eg. the infamous "Clinton acid washed her servers" fact check), but at least I can be reasonably sure that it doesn't contain entirely made up sources.
Replace? I added it as an afterthought after writing something I've come to be quite familiar with as an extra easy validation that people here should know the approximate value of. Adding that doesn't somehow "take away" validity. I really don't get this crazy mindset. Learn where AI is useful.
I think that it's rude to include in your message, any thoughts or afterthoughts you haven't yourself read.
I reason that this is because: Including it in your message is implicitly asking others to read it; all people are equal; asking an equal to do something you can do, but aren't willing to do, is sometimes considered rude.
If you've personally verified the claims and sources there, then feel free to make the claims yourself, citing the sources. Why not do that? That way, everybody wins :)
That is just illogical. It's like if I added some test results done on instrument X would be rude because that would, in your mind, require everyone else to do independent validation of the specific test instrument.
No. The same way people can implicitly trust things measured in specific ways, people know in what AI's are good at. If they include a ton of references from good domains, in a casual context that is already quite strong. Let's not pretend we're working with weapons technology or something lol :)
What kind of question is that? I wrote something from memory, then as an afterthought fed it through a system that is quite good in giving cursory, fact-based review if its validity. You see the whole history and know the system prompt isn't something malicious against the context.
I don't like ChatGPT's biases in many things either but being that hard against it while it cites Reuters etc isn't really sensical.
ChatGPT is not a source. You’re just overwhelming the conversation with slop and then throwing up your hands and saying, “You figure out if it’s true!”
What the hell are you on. I didn't say "ChatGPT is the source". Neither is Wikipedia. It _HAS_ cited sources. Like Reuters. Idk if that's enough for you.
You're talking of "slop" and "overwhelming conversation" while I added a reasonably useful objectivity-based review on something I could easily write from memory. My message, both in being written in an informed sense, and having had it reviewed is quite high above an average comment in effort and reasons it couldn't just be made up.
And you try to bring that down. Go look in the mirror and ask yourself if your motivations are pure.
Actually, they do work is Russia. You need account registered in some allowed country and also use RV plan (or maybe it is called 'roam' now). I know some ppl who use it. Was thinking to get one myself, to have a reliable bypass of pathetic russian firewall.
> to have a reliable bypass of pathetic russian firewall
All data shows that Russia have one of the strongest and best firewall in the world, in many aspects even better than in China. And all the Russians I spoke with say that VPN is not blocked and any service for a couple of bucks does its job.
Living in Chelyabinsk, I believe I'm rather capable to recognize the difference. Yekaterinburg is at least 300km from the nearest part of Kazakhstan (which up to a few days ago wasn't even officially permitted there). So no, there is no indication that there is any kind of geo-fencing for roaming devices, be them in Russia, China, Iran or Afghanistan.
> All data shows that Russia have one of the strongest and best firewall in the world
If you have a pile of shit in the world right in front of your house, it is pathetic, even if it is the biggest and the stinkiest pile of shit in the world.
> And all the Russians I spoke with say that VPN is not blocked and any service for a couple of bucks does its job.
I am Russian. This is not true. All regular vpn protocols (OpenVPN, Wireguard) are outright blocked. Shadowsocks is blocked on most ISPs, including all major mobile ones. VLESS works, for now, mostly, but sometimes the IP address of the server I run become unavailable.
