3 ms·

I'm in the desert in utah right now, i drove two hours offroad from a small town, turned on starlink, and got faster internet than my office in NYC. Incredible.

I'm in the desert in utah right now, i drove two hours offroad from a small town, turned on starlink, and got faster internet than my office in NYC. Incredible. I can run the whole starlink off a small battery pack ($100), dont even need the car on. I can bring it on long hikes, and be sure ill have internet access if i need it. completely changes the risk profile of remote outdoors activity

grebc 3mo ago
I’m not sure regular internet access is changing the risk like you say, but I agree that people like connectivity and hence will do more risky things because they think it’s safer. Rescues even with EPIRB’s can still be difficult.
- arcticfox 3mo ago
  This seems like a crazy position to me. In what world is someone with connectivity not significantly safer in remote areas? Obviously doesn't help with immediately fatal scenarios (falls, drowning etc), but there are whole classes of getting-lost or losing-mobility disasters that just don't exist anymore with connectivity.
  - grebc 3mo ago
    Not talking about day to day living. Talking about activities like hiking, mountain climbing etc and people perception of safety because they have a phone signal.
- mikert89 3mo ago
  this is an absurd thing to say, there are so many situations that are way safer with more information. alot of bad situations happen when people make the wrong decision under uncertainty, or they are in over their head. access to the internet, and increasingly claude, is incredible and changes alot of outdoors risk for the right users
  - yoz-y 3mo ago
    One one hand I understand. On the other, the idea of bringing Claude as a companion on a hiking trip makes me incredibly sad.
  - grebc 3mo ago
    Ask claude to explain perception to you.
- dudul 3mo ago
  How is it not safer to have access to information and be able to contact people from your remote location? Does it make you absolutely 100% safe? No. Does it suddenly nullify any potential risky scenario? No. But it is pretty idiotic to say that it doesn't change the risk. It very clearly changes the risk and reduces it drastically.
  - SpaceNugget 3mo ago
    I want to clarify that no, Starlink _really_ does not "drastically reduce the risk" of remote outdoor activities. Looking it up, Starlink doesn't even provide it's gps location to connected devices. And regardless, actually rugged communication capable handheld gps units already exist and have for a while. And they don't require that you bring a whole satellite dish and some kind of battery pack with you on your wilderness expeditions. What's actually idiotic, and getting lots of people in serious trouble these days, is going out unprepared. Don't risk your life, or search and rescue workers lives because you think you'll use Claude or whatever to figure it out while you are out there. Things can go very wrong very quickly. If you go do risky activities far from help you should be prepared and know what you are getting yourself into and how to get yourself back out of it ahead of time.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - mikert89 3mo ago
      this reads like angry old man shaking his fist, obviously theres truth in it, but its too one sided to be taken seriously a major part of outdoors risk is the uncertainty, which by definition, you cant look up ahead of time
      - dkbrk 3mo ago
        Could you actually explain what you disagree with? In my opinion, everything in the comment you're replying to is obviously correct. If you're going somewhere where there is a chance you might get lost, injured or trapped by weather, and need rescue, you should already be bringing something like a Garmin inReach. That's a highly ruggedized device with a battery that lasts for over a week without recharge, is small enough to keep in a pocket, provides two-way messaging and weather reports, can track your position at regular intervals so your family can see where you are, and can, without any setup and even when you're seriously injured, be used to directly send out an SOS with automatic reporting of your position and two-way voice communication. As excellent as Starlink is, it is nowhere near a substitute for those capabilities. And the inReach has existed for longer than Starlink, ergo Starlink doesn't change the risk profile. The only real argument that Starlink changes the risk profile is if you're comparing Starlink vs nothing, or Starlink + PLB vs just PLB. And sure, in those cases Starlink is a significant improvement, but it's still inferior to something like an inReach. The second part of the argument is that having better connectivity is no substitute for fundamentals, which is overwhelmingly, obviously correct. Yes, bring all the connectivity you want, the more the better if you're willing to carry it. But your plan shouldn't be built around the assumption that you can be rescued if things go wrong. If you get complacent due to having better connectivity it's entirely possible for it to worsen, rather than improve, your risk profile.
- sojournerc 3mo ago
  I agree with your attitude. Technology can give false confidence. Self-rescue, and self-sufficiency are priority, not some sense that someone will come save you if things go wrong.
  - elcritch 3mo ago
    With Starlink, a smartphone, and a solar charger I’d have access to enough YouTube videos to rebuild civilization. Literally. There’s enough to go from building any type of housing to building your own steel forge. It’s amazing.
    - verzali 3mo ago
      Only if the data centres, ground stations, power supplies, internet exchanges etc have also survived the end of civilization.
      - elcritch 3mo ago
        I meant rebuild civilization for myself, say lost in Alaska or something. Though maybe there's a market for tablets with all the youtube survivalist, building, and technology re-creation out there. ;)
- ryanisnan 3mo ago
  As a former SAR technician, connectivity is a massive, massive game changer.
  - grebc 3mo ago
    Sure, not disagreeing on that. No one says car crashes are less risky because you can dial an ambulance.

grebc 3mo ago

I’m not sure regular internet access is changing the risk like you say, but I agree that people like connectivity and hence will do more risky things because they think it’s safer. Rescues even with EPIRB’s can still be difficult.

arcticfox 3mo ago
This seems like a crazy position to me. In what world is someone with connectivity not significantly safer in remote areas? Obviously doesn't help with immediately fatal scenarios (falls, drowning etc), but there are whole classes of getting-lost or losing-mobility disasters that just don't exist anymore with connectivity.
- grebc 3mo ago
  Not talking about day to day living. Talking about activities like hiking, mountain climbing etc and people perception of safety because they have a phone signal.
mikert89 3mo ago
this is an absurd thing to say, there are so many situations that are way safer with more information. alot of bad situations happen when people make the wrong decision under uncertainty, or they are in over their head. access to the internet, and increasingly claude, is incredible and changes alot of outdoors risk for the right users
- yoz-y 3mo ago
  One one hand I understand. On the other, the idea of bringing Claude as a companion on a hiking trip makes me incredibly sad.
- grebc 3mo ago
  Ask claude to explain perception to you.
dudul 3mo ago
How is it not safer to have access to information and be able to contact people from your remote location? Does it make you absolutely 100% safe? No. Does it suddenly nullify any potential risky scenario? No. But it is pretty idiotic to say that it doesn't change the risk. It very clearly changes the risk and reduces it drastically.
- SpaceNugget 3mo ago
  I want to clarify that no, Starlink _really_ does not "drastically reduce the risk" of remote outdoor activities. Looking it up, Starlink doesn't even provide it's gps location to connected devices. And regardless, actually rugged communication capable handheld gps units already exist and have for a while. And they don't require that you bring a whole satellite dish and some kind of battery pack with you on your wilderness expeditions. What's actually idiotic, and getting lots of people in serious trouble these days, is going out unprepared. Don't risk your life, or search and rescue workers lives because you think you'll use Claude or whatever to figure it out while you are out there. Things can go very wrong very quickly. If you go do risky activities far from help you should be prepared and know what you are getting yourself into and how to get yourself back out of it ahead of time.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mikert89 3mo ago
    this reads like angry old man shaking his fist, obviously theres truth in it, but its too one sided to be taken seriously a major part of outdoors risk is the uncertainty, which by definition, you cant look up ahead of time
    - dkbrk 3mo ago
      Could you actually explain what you disagree with? In my opinion, everything in the comment you're replying to is obviously correct. If you're going somewhere where there is a chance you might get lost, injured or trapped by weather, and need rescue, you should already be bringing something like a Garmin inReach. That's a highly ruggedized device with a battery that lasts for over a week without recharge, is small enough to keep in a pocket, provides two-way messaging and weather reports, can track your position at regular intervals so your family can see where you are, and can, without any setup and even when you're seriously injured, be used to directly send out an SOS with automatic reporting of your position and two-way voice communication. As excellent as Starlink is, it is nowhere near a substitute for those capabilities. And the inReach has existed for longer than Starlink, ergo Starlink doesn't change the risk profile. The only real argument that Starlink changes the risk profile is if you're comparing Starlink vs nothing, or Starlink + PLB vs just PLB. And sure, in those cases Starlink is a significant improvement, but it's still inferior to something like an inReach. The second part of the argument is that having better connectivity is no substitute for fundamentals, which is overwhelmingly, obviously correct. Yes, bring all the connectivity you want, the more the better if you're willing to carry it. But your plan shouldn't be built around the assumption that you can be rescued if things go wrong. If you get complacent due to having better connectivity it's entirely possible for it to worsen, rather than improve, your risk profile.
sojournerc 3mo ago
I agree with your attitude. Technology can give false confidence. Self-rescue, and self-sufficiency are priority, not some sense that someone will come save you if things go wrong.
- elcritch 3mo ago
  With Starlink, a smartphone, and a solar charger I’d have access to enough YouTube videos to rebuild civilization. Literally. There’s enough to go from building any type of housing to building your own steel forge. It’s amazing.
  - verzali 3mo ago
    Only if the data centres, ground stations, power supplies, internet exchanges etc have also survived the end of civilization.
    - elcritch 3mo ago
      I meant rebuild civilization for myself, say lost in Alaska or something. Though maybe there's a market for tablets with all the youtube survivalist, building, and technology re-creation out there. ;)
ryanisnan 3mo ago
As a former SAR technician, connectivity is a massive, massive game changer.
- grebc 3mo ago
  Sure, not disagreeing on that. No one says car crashes are less risky because you can dial an ambulance.