3 ms·

I am not sure - afaik there is a speed limit (assumption of satellite visibility and specific latency?) over which starlink won’t work, right? It can however be

I am not sure - afaik there is a speed limit (assumption of satellite visibility and specific latency?) over which starlink won’t work, right? It can however be useful for getting the internet without announcing yourself to a swarm of drones?

maxlin 1y ago
[flagged]
- gruez 1y ago
  >Fact check with more interesting info: https://chatgpt.com/share/684eef92-a604-8010-94aa-07200edb4b https://chatgpt.com/share/684eef92-a604-8010-94aa-07200edb4b... An AI conversation is hardly a "fact check".
  - maxlin 1y ago
    If you have actual feedback on the points go ahead. If you even opened the link, It contains sources. What I wrote, I wrote from memory as I've read plenty of articles and first-party takes while fighting stupid misinformation on this specific issue so much, and just added the fact check as I think that is doing a lot more than 90% of commenters. Replying (trolling?) in the lines of just "lol AI stupid" isn't helpful or aiming towards anyone being better informed.
    - gruez 1y ago
      Note I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's not considered anywhere reliable enough for a "fact check". At best it's "some sources that chatgpt turned up that I have to manually check myself". I'll admit that human written "fact checks" aren't exactly foolproof either (eg. the infamous "Clinton acid washed her servers" fact check), but at least I can be reasonably sure that it doesn't contain entirely made up sources.
    - gmerc 1y ago
      "Sources". It's low quality slop that requires validation.
      - maxlin 1y ago
        Reuters is low quality slop? What? As it seems your reply is the thing that is low quality, I assume you didn't even check the link and that it has citations.
    - multjoy 1y ago
      You didn't write it, tell me why I should read it?
      - maxlin 1y ago
        What kind of question is that? I wrote something from memory, then as an afterthought fed it through a system that is quite good in giving cursory, fact-based review if its validity. You see the whole history and know the system prompt isn't something malicious against the context. I don't like ChatGPT's biases in many things either but being that hard against it while it cites Reuters etc isn't really sensical.
    - MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
      ChatGPT is not a source. You’re just overwhelming the conversation with slop and then throwing up your hands and saying, “You figure out if it’s true!” Not cool and not a way to treat your peers.
      - maxlin 1y ago
        What the hell are you on. I didn't say "ChatGPT is the source". Neither is Wikipedia. It _HAS_ cited sources. Like Reuters. Idk if that's enough for you. You're talking of "slop" and "overwhelming conversation" while I added a reasonably useful objectivity-based review on something I could easily write from memory. My message, both in being written in an informed sense, and having had it reviewed is quite high above an average comment in effort and reasons it couldn't just be made up. And you try to bring that down. Go look in the mirror and ask yourself if your motivations are pure.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      If you've personally verified the claims and sources there, then feel free to make the claims yourself, citing the sources. ChatGPT may be a good tool for you to find information to discuss here, but it is not a good tool to replace discussion here.
      - maxlin 1y ago
        Replace? I added it as an afterthought after writing something I've come to be quite familiar with as an extra easy validation that people here should know the approximate value of. Adding that doesn't somehow "take away" validity. I really don't get this crazy mindset. Learn where AI is useful.
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        I think that it's rude to include in your message, any thoughts or afterthoughts you haven't yourself read. I reason that this is because: Including it in your message is implicitly asking others to read it; all people are equal; asking an equal to do something you can do, but aren't willing to do, is sometimes considered rude. If you've personally verified the claims and sources there, then feel free to make the claims yourself, citing the sources. Why not do that? That way, everybody wins :)
        maxlin 1y ago
        That is just illogical. It's like if I added some test results done on instrument X would be rude because that would, in your mind, require everyone else to do independent validation of the specific test instrument. No. The same way people can implicitly trust things measured in specific ways, people know in what AI's are good at. If they include a ton of references from good domains, in a casual context that is already quite strong. Let's not pretend we're working with weapons technology or something lol :)
gruez 1y ago
>I am not sure - afaik there is a speed limit (assumption of satellite visibility and specific latency?) over which starlink won’t work, right? The author's youtube channel also contains a video of him doing a speedtest on a starlink mini while driving on a highway.
michaelt 1y ago
Starlink satellites orbit at 17,000 miles per hour, so I doubt receivers lose signal just from going at a few hundred miles per hour. Unless there's a software limit built in that turns them off, or the drone's doing some crazy high-G-force acrobatics.

maxlin 1y ago

[flagged]

gruez 1y ago
>Fact check with more interesting info: https://chatgpt.com/share/684eef92-a604-8010-94aa-07200edb4b https://chatgpt.com/share/684eef92-a604-8010-94aa-07200edb4b... An AI conversation is hardly a "fact check".
- maxlin 1y ago
  If you have actual feedback on the points go ahead. If you even opened the link, It contains sources. What I wrote, I wrote from memory as I've read plenty of articles and first-party takes while fighting stupid misinformation on this specific issue so much, and just added the fact check as I think that is doing a lot more than 90% of commenters. Replying (trolling?) in the lines of just "lol AI stupid" isn't helpful or aiming towards anyone being better informed.
  - gruez 1y ago
    Note I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's not considered anywhere reliable enough for a "fact check". At best it's "some sources that chatgpt turned up that I have to manually check myself". I'll admit that human written "fact checks" aren't exactly foolproof either (eg. the infamous "Clinton acid washed her servers" fact check), but at least I can be reasonably sure that it doesn't contain entirely made up sources.
  - gmerc 1y ago
    "Sources". It's low quality slop that requires validation.
    - maxlin 1y ago
      Reuters is low quality slop? What? As it seems your reply is the thing that is low quality, I assume you didn't even check the link and that it has citations.
  - multjoy 1y ago
    You didn't write it, tell me why I should read it?
    - maxlin 1y ago
      What kind of question is that? I wrote something from memory, then as an afterthought fed it through a system that is quite good in giving cursory, fact-based review if its validity. You see the whole history and know the system prompt isn't something malicious against the context. I don't like ChatGPT's biases in many things either but being that hard against it while it cites Reuters etc isn't really sensical.
  - MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
    ChatGPT is not a source. You’re just overwhelming the conversation with slop and then throwing up your hands and saying, “You figure out if it’s true!” Not cool and not a way to treat your peers.
    - maxlin 1y ago
      What the hell are you on. I didn't say "ChatGPT is the source". Neither is Wikipedia. It _HAS_ cited sources. Like Reuters. Idk if that's enough for you. You're talking of "slop" and "overwhelming conversation" while I added a reasonably useful objectivity-based review on something I could easily write from memory. My message, both in being written in an informed sense, and having had it reviewed is quite high above an average comment in effort and reasons it couldn't just be made up. And you try to bring that down. Go look in the mirror and ask yourself if your motivations are pure.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    If you've personally verified the claims and sources there, then feel free to make the claims yourself, citing the sources. ChatGPT may be a good tool for you to find information to discuss here, but it is not a good tool to replace discussion here.
    - maxlin 1y ago
      Replace? I added it as an afterthought after writing something I've come to be quite familiar with as an extra easy validation that people here should know the approximate value of. Adding that doesn't somehow "take away" validity. I really don't get this crazy mindset. Learn where AI is useful.
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        I think that it's rude to include in your message, any thoughts or afterthoughts you haven't yourself read. I reason that this is because: Including it in your message is implicitly asking others to read it; all people are equal; asking an equal to do something you can do, but aren't willing to do, is sometimes considered rude. If you've personally verified the claims and sources there, then feel free to make the claims yourself, citing the sources. Why not do that? That way, everybody wins :)
        maxlin 1y ago
        That is just illogical. It's like if I added some test results done on instrument X would be rude because that would, in your mind, require everyone else to do independent validation of the specific test instrument. No. The same way people can implicitly trust things measured in specific ways, people know in what AI's are good at. If they include a ton of references from good domains, in a casual context that is already quite strong. Let's not pretend we're working with weapons technology or something lol :)

gruez 1y ago

>I am not sure - afaik there is a speed limit (assumption of satellite visibility and specific latency?) over which starlink won’t work, right? The author's youtube channel also contains a video of him doing a speedtest on a starlink mini while driving on a highway.

michaelt 1y ago

Starlink satellites orbit at 17,000 miles per hour, so I doubt receivers lose signal just from going at a few hundred miles per hour. Unless there's a software limit built in that turns them off, or the drone's doing some crazy high-G-force acrobatics.