In good faith? In what context? When? Who?

Its a company, it sells a product, people use it.

Maybe but people already had plenty of internet before Starlink.

Everyone i know who is using starlink doesn't use starlink because htey need starlink for internet.

Is that because everyone you know lives in a high-wealth country/area?

Yepp. But if you look were Starlink is available, thats true for sure for a few more from the current 10 Million customers.

So is it worth it for a handfull of people on our planet vs. destroying our atmoshpere and removing access to our space?

I don't think so.

So because 10 Million people want to have internet, 8 Billion people no longer get acccess to that resource?

That sounds like a nice attitude from you.

There's a lot fewer than 8 billion people who have access to the resource of "radio astronomy". I suspect it is in fact less than the 10 million figure of people who might want to use satellite-provided internet.

Exponentially more people benefit from Starlink than from radio astronomy. It doesn’t need to be a one or the other conversation though.

Its not just radio astronomy, its also optical.

And no i don't think so. Radio astronomies research results are fundamental for all of us, our understanding and for modern technology.

This makes it nescsaary that you have to send something away out of earth. Is Spacex sponsoring this type of research? No. So who has the researcher go to? To someone with money.

Did you care about the writing style of Rex Edison before and now you are disappointed?

That page is not the New Yorker.

And don't get me wrong, but the writing of normal newspaper became shit through the internet not due to claude. You have the clickbait header, than you have the subtext which repeats the clickbait header, then you had the first paragraph which repeats the subheader, than you had the second paragraph giving you some random 'background infos' and then you got the gist of the story in the 3 or 4th paragraph.

Clickbait headlines have a long history. Go look up old newspapermen’s reminiscences about them. The most famous are classics like “HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR” (1983) from the NY Post or “STICKS NIX HICK PIX” (1935) from Variety.

I'm pretty sure we reached peak software developer jobs due to ai.

The market is already collapsing in China and India.

So they still might do but in parallel the software engineering market in china and india is collapsing.

Source?

Lots of chatter online, i have seen a few videos on this tpic on YT.

https://www.hays-china.cn/en/press-release/content/%E4%B8%AD...

I think he's referring to contracting companies. Cheap software used to be outsourced to India, but it's now getting outsourced to AI. Companies that produce novel things are still hiring, often to manage agents and review output.

The code I have seen and see still, started shitty.

I have seen so much production code with garbage code and massive bugs, the industry doesn't care for 'real'.

They care in principle, for the most part bad code makes changes and extensions slow to implement and causes unnecessary production issues which costs time and money. But there is always the tension between implementing something quickly now and being able to implement things quickly in the future and unfortunately the preference is almost always quickly now despite everyone knowing that this is the way more expensive choice in the long run.

It isn't necessarily the more expensive choice in the long run. Let's say that companies A and B are direct competitors who start from the same point. Company A quickly codes a bunch of buggy software and ships it in a month. Company B takes its time and ships good, clean, well-organized, mostly bug-free code in five months. Company A makes money. Company B goes out of business and its code is useless, its nice qualities irrelevant.

This is just a hypothetical example, I'm not saying that this is how it would necessarily go in all cases.

Not even in principle. Like how often you had to fight a product manager to do this or that.

"Does that code work?" "yes" "so lets ship it" "but its not good" "but it works right?"

But they also ask why the next feature is taking so long, because of the mess we created with the last feature, and I would consider this caring in principle. Unfortunately this almost always filed as unavoidable.

Its a tweet of someone who got rich at meta. Their moral compas is between their paycheck and the next paycheck.

Like with all the tricks Meta played... Maybe somewhere deep down Moonshot's EULA is says that they are allowed to "proxy from time to time for research purposes". Then it's legal right? /s