[flagged]
FBI warned Twitter about Russian adversarial actions, which is known and documented by anyone not blinded by their made in China maga hats
https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/ukraine-uses-over-11000...
If Russia can hack SpaceX's systems and divert them to ensure they do not provide service over Ukraine, why wouldn't they? Or brick all terminals by sending a malicious update? Similarly, dealing with electromagnetic interference.
Thinking Russia is completely benign would be an incredibly naive take. Or simply blinded by Musk hate.
This experience has allowed them to launch "Starshield", but it definitely has not been cheap.
That didn't happen as far as I know.
> Or brick all terminals by sending a malicious update?
That didn't happen either.
> Similarly, dealing with electromagnetic interference.
For which there is no evidence at all, in fact the only reason Starlink ever suffered an outage was for reasons which had nothing to do with the Russians.
> Thinking Russia is completely benign would be an incredibly naive take. Or simply blinded by Musk hate.
No, I'm totally not thinking that Russia is 'completely benign', and I'm sure they'd love to do all of those things and more. But without any evidence that it is actually happening it is as far as I'm concerned fantasy.
> This experience has allowed them to launch "Starshield", but it definitely has not been cheap.
So what?
Really, I can't make heads or tails of your comment, that's probably on me though.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/pentagon-impressed-by-starlinks-f...
Are you in the denial phase or the ignorance one? If the former, why would the government take part in a conspiracy to pretend that Starlink didn’t require special support to work in that environment? If the latter, why would you even boldly claim “there is no evidence at all” without even doing a cursory search?
The fact is: the Russians have to date been unsuccessful in suppressing Starlink signals, for a variety of reasons including some countermeasures.
But let's not pretend that the main cost is in that aspect of operating the service. The main cost is in making and launching the satellites and once those costs have been sunk further use of the system assuming the terminals are bought and paid for.
As time goes on and parties are getting more inventive likely there will be some more defenses against countermeasures. But a LEO based satellite system has a number of advantages over a GEO based one and those operate in war zones all the time. Hacks of Starlink satellites and terminals have - afaik - not happened.
GGGP claimed: "The expensive part is not the terminals, it is providing continuous reliable service in a hostile environment with a determined adversary." -> I see no evidence for that. It is a cost, but not the cost.
Note that Elon has a vested interest in making it appear as though he is spending a lot of money on keeping Starlink online in Ukraine, personally I would not put it past him to inflate those costs.
Because you are not looking. The fact that spacex is having to spend engineering time at all making improvements to operate in an actively jammed environment means software and possibly hardware engineering resources not being spent on scaling the network, working on their next gen constellation, etc. For a company that runs as lean as SpaceX on engineering headcount (based on reading Blind and Glassdoor reviews), that opportunity cost is easily tens of millions of dollars.
You’re also drastically misunderstanding the lifetime and duty cycles of LEO sats. Those things have to have time to dump heat and charge their batteries. Serving in Ukraine means worse coverage in America 90 mins later. It’s not just a magic mirror in the sky that costs nothing to cover the ground.
This is the first result when searching for it.
> But Musk says it's been a difficult environment. "Starlink has resisted Russian cyberwar jamming & hacking attempts so far, but they're ramping up their efforts," he wrote(opens in new tab) on Twitter Tuesday (May 10).
> According to a Reuters report(opens in new tab), which Musk also shared, a coalition of countries have said that Russia backed a cyberattack against satellite internet systems that ultimately pulled tens of thousands of modems offline shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine Feb. 24.
> British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said the attack against Viasat's KA-SAT network was "deliberate and malicious," Reuters stated(opens in new tab), and the Council of the European Union said the hack caused "indiscriminate communication outages" in Ukraine and several member states. The attacks were confirmed by the United States, Canada and Estonia, Reuters added.
https://www.space.com/starlink-russian-cyberattacks-ramp-up-...
Of course, there is an ongoing effort. Simply because it seems like they have not breached Starlink does not mean it has been cheap to ensure that.
Russia has, like all nations with power ambitions, a history of cyberwarfare.
If anything, SpaceX/Starlink has an easier time of it because their signal levels are much higher and the satellites can use phased arrays to pinpoint the receivers (in fact, they have to because they aren't geostationary and very low).
The fact this was upvoted despite that makes me feel like returning to commenting very infrequently is the right choice.
Hope you have a nice day.
This article discusses the interplay: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/13/musk-carlson-trump-midt...
> (as if that’s even his fault anyways)
Maybe if this were 2016, but how Russian propaganda works and the role prominent/influential Westerners play in reinforcing Russia's narratives is (or should be) well known to highly connected and influential people like Musk.
When you say "X", and then "X" is used by a genocidal regime to support their war of choice, maybe it's time to stop saying "X".
> 2) He said they should negotiate a peace and end the war, which is correct. This was in the context of preventing the escalation to nuclear weapons which would be a disaster unseen since WWII.
The geopolitical stalemate that has staved off nuclear war since the Cold War era has been MAD - mutually assured destruction. The idea that anyone should cede territory to an invading nuclear power at the mere threat of using nukes is to abandon MAD entirely. In this new framework, any country with nuclear capabilities will be emboldened to wage conventional war, and they can be comfortable knowing that if they disrupt western life enough and threaten the end of the planet with nuclear Armageddon, they don't risk any retaliation by the West whatsoever. In fact, quite the opposite, the West will be happy to capitulate under the guise of "peace". But really all that has happened is that bullies are empowered to bully.
If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine by threatening nuclear war, what happens when Putin turns toward Moldova and starts threatening them? If Putin is appeased, what stops him from demanding more? Does Putin just get whatever he wants now, as long as he threatens to use his nukes?
Putin doesn't need to be placated to deter him from using nukes. It needs to be made clear to him (and all Russians) that Russia will be vaporized in the case Putin uses nukes against Ukraine. That is the deterrence.
> 3) Twitter was extremely corrupt at pretty much every level, and his “Twitter files” only showed what we all knew was happening
The Twitter Files show you what Musk wants you to see. Case in point: Musk released the tweets that Biden wanted taken down (actually although he had them, Musk didn't release theml we had to track them down using the Internet Archive) but won't release the tweets the Trump admin wanted taken down. It's no wonder you conclude corruption, when you're being sold half the story. Selective disclosure and narrative building have been the hallmark of the Twitter Files. Ask yourself: if the point is transparency and exposure, why isn't all the data available for anyone to peruse?