Hacker News Reader

Comment by stringfood | Hacker News Reader

but is providing access to internet for billions of people worth not being able to see the big dipper as clearly at night? I say yes, but only just barely

View on HN

This is unironically why I believe lights should be shut off at night. Entire cities.

I'd love to see the sky. Actually see it. Even the most remote places have light pollution, so it's impossible and likely will be going forward.

Maybe it's silly, but it makes me sad.

This is a first world problem that has a first world solution: get in your car and drive to the woods.

What percentage of humans are urban dwelling and don’t even see the stars at night? Related there aren’t many places on earth where you can still see the Milky Way. In that way a similar trade off has been made with no forethought whatsoever. Should this time be different? I think so.

That's a ghoulish thing to say.

Can you empirically say internet access improves wellbeing? Anecdotally, my answer is a resounding "no".

Rather than deciding for them from your bubble of privilege in your fiber-connected utopia, you could just ask these poorer countries if it is worth trading global full, high-speed internet access for "not being able to see the big dipper as clearly at night".

Or just watch what they do when presented with the choice.

That you would think to ask this shows how out of touch you are.

The vast majority of people wouldn't think twice if that was the trade-off to get connected.

We should be talking instead of governmental oversight, and whether it makes sense to restrict/regulate satellite constellations for science or culture activities.

I think there should be regulation, but clearly the people and the market wants this, so it's going to happen.

And there is regulation. SpaceX works with astronomers and their satellites are coated to reduce glare and use of sun visors for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com