How are you breaking this problem down? I'd suggest stubbing out the endpoints as a skeleton with their respective HTTP verbs so the API contract is what you start with.
Then pick an easy endpoint and start to implement the code. Follow this through for the rest and add tests as you go. You'll probably want to adjust some of the app structure and maybe do small refractors to help keep things organized when you get there.
It would be nice if Starlink could honour their existing obligations as a priority first. I have reserved Starlink here in Canada nearly two years ago and received an email advising it's now been pushed to summer 2023. That's three years of waiting. I was also emailed last year advising the monthly cost has increased and so has the dish itself. Shouldn't providing down payment legally guarantee to buy a service at original said price? I'm already frustrated and not even a customer yet....
It's a refundable deposit, not a down payment. There is no obligation on either side. There is too much demand and the service is oversubscribed in populated areas. Planes spend a lot of time in areas that aren't populated, so it makes perfect sense that they can offer service to planes before people in oversubscribed regions.
They are working as hard as they possibly can to get Starship working, which will enable Starlink V2, to dramatically increase capacity and get you service. And the revenue from serving planes is going to help them get there without going bankrupt first.
Yet again, we hit the "that depends entirely on where you live". On Vancouver Island, planes spend most of their time nowhere near populated areas, but between populated areas. Not that you'd need internet on those flights, but let's also not pretend there's only one type of plane flying one type of route with one type of customer in one type of setting (or even only one of those restrictions).
You've done route planning for internet service, or route planning for US/Canada domestic in-flight internet service? Because there's a lot of nothing in between successive towns in rural Canada and the US.
I've done route planning for satellite internet for domestic flights. airplanes tend to take the exact same paths over heavily concentrated areas, and the hubs have a tremendous amount of demand around them. you can verify this by paying for flightaware data and looking at historical data by airline. even without ground traffic consider 3 planes in the same beam need to serve ~500 people.
airlines bank on you not using it or charging a lot to keep the numbers down. JetBlue does it for free by subsidizing through the ticket price since people pay a premium for the name.
same thing applies since they share the same airports. they'll give these planes higher priority because of the cost, but it's not enough to make an entire business from. they need the residential service to be profitable.
> > Planes spend a lot of time in areas that aren't populated
> no, planes spend most of their time in populated areas
These statements are not mutually exclusive. Even if planes aren't spending an absolute majority of their time in unpopulated areas, it's still a lot of time compared to the 0% that a fixed terminal in a suburb would spend. Starlink needs paying customers in those unpopulated areas, even if they are only there some of the time. And the customers need Starlink too, even more than rural customers, many of whom could in theory be served by fixed wireless or something; that's not a possibility for planes over the poles or what have you.
> no, planes spend most of their time in populated areas. specifically near major airports, and the WiFi needs to work on the ground as well.
Except most of a passenger's time in an aircraft isn't spent sitting on the ground (if it is, something's gone wrong) and they can use cell phones and wifi hotspots in such locations anyway.
Further, major airports aren't _populated_. People don't live there and airports are large enough they fill up a significant fraction of a starlink cell.
I'm not going to argue about this. go look up flight aware data. when a given airline has a dozen or so planes in the same beam because of a hub, it creates massive congestion. people use the internet whether they're on the ground or not. it certainly uses up a giant portion of a starlink cell if they were ever to land an airline.
the wifi does not need to work on the ground. if an airline says they have onboard wifi and you’re using base station data on the ground 95% of people won’t have a problem
You bought the FSD feature as well? Still haven't been invited to beta but my bigger problem is the backup camera doesn't work due to a frayed cable and the cable has been back ordered for 11 months now. Musk never prioritizes his current customers. Need those cables for new cars.
> the backup camera doesn't work due to a frayed cable and the cable has been back ordered for 11 months now.
I would have assumed that this issue would be quickly addressed by aftermarket suppliers just like it would with any other car manufacturer. Are Tesla like Apple? (i.e abuse laws and technology to lock customers in)
I haven't tried. It's a recall and don't really want to pay for their defect. It will be interesting to see if I can get my tabs next year because california requires recalls to be fixed in a certain amount of time.
I’m not making excuses for Tesla’s many misgivings, but they did honor the pre-order price for my model Y, even though new orders were more than 10% higher.
They also own 2/3 of the US EV market (with all remaining automakers combined making the remaining third), but people love to shit on them all the time. Tesla is driving the EV revolution while the rest of the auto industry drags its feet.
I owned one for like 8-9 years. I love to shit on the cars because they were awful to own. I eventually sold it when Tesla just stopped responding to safety recall notices or repairs, to say nothing of the "weird, the thing is stuck on a reboot loop" or "FSD IS HERE!" (FSD not available)
What models are you referring to? Having driven a loaded Taycan, which I think is probably most often cited as being superior, I’d take even a basic Tesla over it any day. AFAICT, none of the competitors have the full system UX dialed in like Tesla.
BMW ix, Ford Mach e, Ford lightning, Mercedes EQS, Hyundai Kona, VW id4, Rivian r1t. Both established brands and new players are coming after the market hard. It's not hard to imagine that Tesla will have serious competition basically now.
Many make decent cars, even good cars (Hyundai) but they don't make better EVs than Tesla. Hyundai might be there in terms of value IFF the non-Tesla charging network wasn't so abysmal. I drove multiple manufacturers and currently own a Tesla and a Hyundai EV.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. Besides, you definitely can't claim it's "objectively" better unless you're really cherry picking the stats/features you're comparing.
Just on features alone. What can I get on a Tesla that I cannot get somewhere else? Anything? What can I get on a non-Tesla that I cannot get on a Tesla? Rain sensing wipers. CarPlay. HUD. Dashboard screen (in front of the driver). Physical buttons for things that matter. 360 camera. Blindspot and cross traffic warning. Can a Model 3 hit 350kW DC charging yet?
What if I want a pickup? I can buy a Rivian. I can buy a Ford. I will be able to buy a Chevy before the Cybertruck is available. What if I want an SUV but don't want to pay Model X prices?
Tesla is sitting back on their early success, riding a wave of popularity. Good for them. But real competition arrived in the last couple years, and it looks really good. I enjoyed my Model 3 and when I bought it there was no competition, but I'm in the market again and I cannot find a compelling reason to choose a Tesla again. Even if there were feature parity, Tesla's consumer-hostile behavior has me worried about committing to another relationship with them.
In general I found the experience of buying a Tesla extremely pleasant, and the first couple years of ownership quite nice. The longer I owned the car, the worse it got.
Absolutely. I mean, your post is glib to the point of reductiveness, but Musk has habitually lied about Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company, the Hyperloop, Neural Link and just about every venture he's been in.
It's not hard to find a half dozen lies about each of those companies, to say nothing of his social media presence.
I'd happily float an innovator an occasional overreach. But it's dozens and dozens of times now and people still buy it.
> Shouldn't providing down payment legally guarantee to buy a service at original said price?
Why would it? What does your contract say? It sounds like you just gave a company your money and got nothing legally binding in exchange. Don't do that.
Preorders and reservations of unreleased products are for people who like to get screwed, or for people with so much money they don't care if they get screwed. I know people who preorder AAA games, the game turns out to be crap and they complain about it. "Ugh, I can't believe I preordered this crap." Then a year later they're doing it again...
"Doctor, it hurts when I poke my eye!" Uh, then stop doing that.
Preorders seem entirely reasonable to me for things that are likely to be in short supply after launch. I recently pre-ordered an iPhone and was happy to receive one promptly after they started shipping. Games seem to be a fairly meaningless thing to pre-order in a world of digital downloads - but I could see the reason behind pre-ordering some limited edition release, for example.
Obviously you need to be careful, know what your options are to cancel, and make sure you trust the company - especially if they require a deposit. But for me getting something a couple of weeks or months earlier than I would otherwise be able to is a benefit that I am often willing to assume some amount of risk for.
Seems like offering a $25,000/mo aviation service (which could be at almost any latitude) might be pretty risky, in that case. For $25,000/mo, customers are going to expect connectivity.
$25,000/mo for 350 Mbps and no download limits is extremely cheap compared to Viasat. In the short term Airlines could probably save money setting this up alongside existing services. Though Viasat isn’t going to be able to survive this kind of competition for long.
According to this Viasat brochure [1], their top global (not regional) plan is $14k/mo with speeds ranging 20-40Mbps, or approx. $466 per 1Mbps. Comparatively, $25k/mo for 350Mbps would average $71 per 1Mbps, or ~6x cheaper for the speed.
We'll see how the actual speed (and reliability) shake out in practice, though.
Inmarsat will launch two satellites in HEO next year to provide coverage for the arctic. Should improve coverage in higher latitudes for the merged company.
It seems inevitable Starlink will prioritize profitable commercial ventures first. Industry is going to find more data intensive applications and squeeze out residential use.
The way Starlink works SpaceX has no means to prioritize airplanes over residential.
If you wait for service in residential area it's because it's oversubscribed and SpaceX has to put more satellites in orbit or build more ground station.
Those satellites are the same that support airplanes so they benefit all use cases.
The issue is coverage i.e. bandwidth per area. The way Starlink works is that bandwidth (satellites) is more or less uniformly distributed over area. They can't just add one satellite over a city in Canada to provide more service there. To double available bandwidth in Canada they have to double the number of Satellites.
Airplanes (and boats) don't compete for bandwidth with residential because most of the time they are over areas without other Starlink users.
The antennas are not the same so it's not like an airplane antenna fights with residential antenna.
If anything, making more money boats and airplanes helps SpaceX build satellites and antennas faster so this service is a win for residential as well.
They already prioritize business service over residential service and residential service over RV/residential+roaming service. This just adds another priority above business service.
They have no existing obligations, and a business model that doesn't seem to work for consumer-level products. They are in the process of trying to upscale quickly: they entered the defense market (Starlinks in Ukraine), they started providing service for luxury yachts, and now aircraft. It's clear what is happening here: they have been told that they can't get subsidies for consumer broadband, so they are pivoting.
I understand the frustration, but I don't think that ignoring aviation would help Starlink serve you faster. I know, anytime a company launches something new while you're waiting for something else, it feels like they're prioritizing that over you. That's often not really how things work. Going with aviation could give them cash flow to be able to move faster while not really using up capacity in your area.
Personally, I think that Starlink should pursue deprioritization of heavy users. Note, that's not a bandwidth cap or limit. If there's excess network capacity, there's no reason to prevent a user from using it. However, when there's congestion, I think it makes sense to give priority to lower-usage users. I think it would be reasonable to do this in stages. The average US household uses about 350GB/mo (according to data made available by T-Mobile US and Comcast/Xfinity).
Given that Starlink has capacity constraints and given that they are serving as a bit of an internet lifeline to people without other options, it seems reasonable that they could have staged deprioritization maybe like this: first 250GB/mo is full-speed; next 250GB at 80% speed when there is congestion such that their usage would be reducing speeds for others; next 500GB at 60% speed when congested; next 1TB at 40% speed; next 2TB at 20% speed...
I know, many people's reaction would be that they shouldn't slow you down, they're advertising unlimited service, etc. At the same time, it's a shared link and a user using 10TB of data means that Starlink can't provide service to around 30 people. Do you prioritize one person using a lot over the needs of dozens? And this is only at times of congestion and realistically 40Mbps or even 20Mbps is still quite usable - especially when the alternative is 3Mbps DSL. 20Mbps will even allow 4K streaming and many full-HD streams.
To make it even better, one could only count data usage during congested times, but that's a lot harder to reason about because we don't always know congested times in advance and while I have data on average monthly usage, I don't have information on usage during congested times. The different thresholds would need to be adjusted accordingly.
Still, given a shared link with demand way exceeding capacity, I think it makes sense to offer the service to more users with the knowledge that there will be some traffic shaping around usage. I worked in IT at a university and one of the big things was that the top 50 users on the network usually consumed more than half of the available bandwidth. The university liked supporting students, but thought it reasonable to give their traffic lower priority than the thousands of other users on the network. The techie students liked it because they could do what they wanted without impacting other users.
Starlink is more capacity constrained, but I think almost no one would notice being deprioritized to 80% during congestion. I think most usage wouldn't notice further deprioritization.
I think net neutrality is very important, but I do think with a shared link like Starlink there can be some opt-in traffic shaping that can work in concert with deprioritization. For example, let's say you want do download CoD Modern Warfare at over 200GB. Should that be given equal priority to someone trying to video chat with their family? Well, that might depend on your personal views - maybe you're really looking forward to the game. However, I do think that Starlink could build in an opt-in feature that would move bulk data transfers (like game downloads) from congested times to non-congested times. Even during peak times, there are lulls in congestion and I think many people would say, "yes, please save network bandwidth for 'important' or real-time needs compared to my non-time-sensitive transfer and in exchange that transfer doesn't count toward deprioritization limits." But you might also decide that you want CoD Modern Warfare as fast as possible - and that would be your choice. I'd also point out that there are lots of transfers that aren't "fun" like a new game. For example, you need to download OS updates for your smartphone or laptop, but you generally aren't champing at the bit to update and restart immediately - we've all played the "not today" game with updates. There's no reason for those downloads to happen during congestion while that Netflix show you're watching has packets that need to be delivered.
I think Starlink has been trying to offer an unlimited connection without caveats like deprioritization and I think it's putting them in a tough spot. I'm guessing many of their users got Starlink and had minimal usage the first few months. They weren't the types to spend a lot of time online because their connectivity was terrible - but as they became accustomed to Starlink's level of service, that changed. If Starlink was averaging 50-100GB per user, that might have gone up to 300GB per user or even more as people cancel things like satellite TV for streaming services and get accustomed to having a good internet connection. People without good internet wouldn't be in the habit of using it, but that would certainly change over the months and years.
> Shouldn't providing down payment legally guarantee to buy a service at original said price?
I can't comment on legally. Morally? Maybe the dish itself and maybe the service for a limited time like 1 year, but internet service prices usually only offer a 1 or 2 year price guarantee (yes, there are exceptions, but this is shouldn't be about holding Starlink to a higher standard than the industry in general).
Yes, it's frustrating that the price has gone up for both the service and the dish itself, but it can be hard to price new services. You don't quite know how much data people are going to use, you don't totally know how the network will perform, etc. As I noted, it seems likely that they're getting greater than expected usage as users get accustomed to using it more and more. Fuel prices, supply chain disruption, and general inflation don't help Starlink continue offering service or the dish at the original price.
Again, I really understand the frustration. However, I think Starlink's premium products (aviation, maritime) will only help the company serve home users better.
- the deep integration with accounts you accumulate over time, one click sign-on is easy but with its tradeoffs
- the known and blatant indexing it does of your email content to power their profiles of users for ads
- the fact it records nearly every transaction and vendor I've used, is scary
- I recently sent a friend a one word subject with a link to a tweet and it was red flagged as dangerous sender and content in my friends Gmail, he sent me screenshot
- the fact Google is so deeply integrated to state now, in other verticals like YouTube and this disinformation hunt against free speech against anyone who doesn't agree with what you should see or read
Time to switch folks, $50 a year to me is worth it.
> the deep integration with accounts you accumulate over time, one click sign-on is easy but with its tradeoffs
I was lucky in that the first time I encountered one-click sign-on was in the early days when Facebook was aggressively pushing it. There was no way in hell I would give Facebook the discretion to allow me access to integrated services, so I created a login for the service. That lesson has stuck with me ever since and I'll never use these integrated logins. If you lose access to your Google account (which more and more people are experiencing for any and no reason at all), you also lose access to any integrated services. That's crazy. I wish more people would take that consideration seriously.
How does either of those example demonstrate email contents being used for ad targeting? What I see is just a more convenient UI for displaying what I've bought than searching for the individual receipts in the email archive.
There's just no ambiguity in Google's statements about email contents not being used for any kind of advertising purposes.
Google doesn't deny that it scans your email for information, it denies that it uses that data for ad targeting and profiling. Your links don't challenge that claim.
Yeah Remote Where? I can’t believe job postings and websites can’t list this information upfront without asking for it. Most of such offers are typically from the US, which says something about the mindset of the society.
I think most wealthier countries outsource to other countries in the same timezone, but prefer local for legal purposes. American cities can be bloody expensive, and the more out of town areas can be significantly cheaper to live in, even compared to South America and developing countries.
EU's salary ranges aren't so far; they can hire from the cheaper EU countries as well. Commuting between EU countries is also relatively easy when necessary.
Australia has a large pay gap and probably hires outside the country a lot more compared to other countries in the world. But they're a much smaller tech employer than the US.
- Business sector (so I can filter out every crypto/NFT shop)
- Tech Stack - as searchable data, with "mandatory" requirements included. "Senior Software Engineer" means nothing if it's in a language I have never worked as a senior with, and just wastes everyones time (and also for some reason they put these requirements at the end of the descriptions).
For things like "where you're allowed to live" and "time zones of team members", yes, 100%.
For a lot of the other points, employers are incentivized against candor, especially in a public posting. They're trying to attract the best workers at the lowest price. You're not gonna get the unvarnished truth.
Getting a good sense of a job/team/leadership seems to require informal conversations with key people in a context where they'll have something to gain from being candid. Maybe you get that when you're approaching the offer letter stage of an employer's recruiting funnel. How might you get it as a part-time job board maintainer?
A link to the "Remote working" policy document publicly hosted on their main domain would be a solid choice, with key points summarised in the job posting.
The first two points are really missing in many job postings.
A serious remote first company needs to have a remote strategy and lay it out clearly in their job posting.
I feel like this is a problem ML could solve for assisted feedback focused on positive tone, ml models scans your response and offers suggestions on phrasing.
The author has no credibility on this subject at all. BTC is not mined with GPUs. They then make statements with no actual backing that are just opinions. Anyone can mine, yes it is profitable. Stop spreading false narratives. Then there's the laughable environment statements everywhere. Do some actual research on a topic instead of talking about "white crypto bros". This article is insulting and uninformed.
How could this be integrated with the Chia project with proof of space? The problem with Chia is storage is filled up with useless data, if you could use your photos or other long term data that would create something great.
That sounds like a great idea, cdnsteve. Slik can very easily be integrated with any backend, and we have explored more than 5 different storage backends for the SlikSafe app. Though the current storage backends work pretty well, I'd be happy to connect with the Chia project team.
Do you know anyone in their team? and if so, could you connect me with them? Thank you!
