> It lifts up everyone a little bit; most people a lot; No, it doesn't. It helps the people who are lucky enough to already have one foot in the race. But that

> It lifts up everyone a little bit; most people a lot; No, it doesn't. It helps the people who are lucky enough to already have one foot in the race. But that's not remotely everyone. > directly addresses both hunger and cancer through better internet, more research, a bigger economy, connected tractors. Perhaps, although that's not really "directly". But then you're saying that we need to allow multi-billionaires in order to have things like Starlink. How about we stop ISPs from being stingy with their money and suddenly we don't need to rely on one rich person to save us from the other rich people? You seem to think that if the government takes some control/wealth out of the hands of these people, we're suddenly going to have stagnation. I don't see why it has to be all-or-nothing; we don't have to implement scary, spooky communism. You know what I think is even better than having Starlink? If we had Starlink and we didn't have exploitative, ruthless businesses that led to needing to have Starlink as it is now. It would just be the new technology that Comcast or Verizon made, without the weird "Elon Musk will save us all" fanfare.