Comments by "" (@sirtra) on "Starlink: BUSTED!! + ALL other Failed Musk promises!" video.

Summary: thunderf00t re-hashes the same stale stuff he's said about musk for over 15 minutes, does some simple maths based on flawed assumptions to arrive at the result he wants to mock musk and finally after about 30 minutes it finally unfolds as to why thunderf00t has made this video and it has nothing to do with "busting" starlink... Thunderf00t is upset that Musk's satellites are getting in the way of astronomers looking at stars from earth. PS Phil, you might want to read this to get you started on entry level ISP stuff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio
9
@EEVblog TF calculations are flawed on this video.. On the 100W usage thing it'd be much much less... to use an analogy think of a mobile phone.. the power drain on the battery whilst using just data/internet is drastically different to being on a call - the difference being due to radio transmission. It's also based on the assumption the return path will also be via satellite, most consumer satellite services use an alternative return path (eg dsl, cell, wireless etc)
7
@Bacteriophagebs cant accept that some dudes equipment uses 100W? sure i can.. i dont dispute he's telling the truth, but thats not scientifically significant to "busting" starlink. It could use 200W and electricity prices could quadruple - it has meaningless significance to the feasibility of starlink. Scientifically however, the transmitter power does need to be taken into consideration - this is in no way related to wall socket consumption or cost of electricity though. You just in an angry mood or are you always this argumentative for no purpose?
3
@Bacteriophagebs uh, no, over the air calls do not use VOIP but the protocol being used is irrelevant. To really simplify this for you since it was an ANALOGY - which you even got backwards, making a call is more power intensive than browsing. And thats even with the screen off during a call. Processor has little to do with it. Don't believe me? Make a 3 hour call...
2
@Bacteriophagebs you're focusing on irrelevant pedantic points that have nothing to do with the topic - power requirements to send/receive data, whether it be starlink device or cell device. The analogy was merely to explain the difference between transmitting an intermittent trickle (browsing) and transmitting a continual stream (call). If you want to get all pedantic lets take calls out of the equation entirely. Whilst a mobile phone has a 1-4W transmitter they do not consume that amount of power continuously, it will fluctuate according to traffic. The whole concept of him using 100W based off a dude living in an RV is the most petty reasoning ive seen TF use to so-call "bust" something. As if someones electricity bill is a factor to whether starlink is plausible or not is ludicrous just on its face, but to then use an arbitrary value based of some dude's youtube clip is an incredibly disingenuous way to then come to an annual total. Long story short this whole "busted" video hinges on 2 napkin calculations, breakeven cost and power consumption. Both based from cascading bad assumptions - heck he doesn't even bother to google contention ratios to get some actual real-world estimates, he just makes it up!
2
@Bacteriophagebs wow according to one test. Well guess uts busted then, starlink is doomed based on the results of a test. No way it could be more efficient, the maths you provided makes it very clear, generating EMF requires the same amount of power for p0rn and email so BuStED! smh
2
@Rob2 you dont comprehend how insignificant the wall socket power consumption is to whether starlink is busted or not do you? Yes, lets bog down on whether or not one or a thousand rabbits are necessary for predicting carrot consumption too while we are at it.. Cause thats has about as much to do with busting starlink as the price of data from Amazon.
1
@Shadow66090 Skylink? If you're as sloppy wiping your behind as you are replying to youtube comments you must stink
1
@Shadow66090 how many rabbits are required to break even on carrot consumption again?
1
@randomname4726 i know plenty about the subject, im looking at it from a very technical level - as in what precisely would be required from a purely scientific standpoint to implement starlink. This is very different to analyzing the current trial equipment and making a judgment on whether its economically viable based on napkin maths by an academic professor who knows so little about internet provisioning and contention ratios he just makes up a figure of 1:10 rather than attempting to learn if thats even realistic or not (its not) or even what a contention ratio is - seriously anyone who has worked at an ISP would laugh at how TF has arrived at his conclusion... 2TB will only service 30,000 customers and thus starlink is busted? Bwahahaha. Even someone who only works in the enterprise network space would know how pathetic that guesstimate is. More to the point, its not even a technical justification its purely an economical one based on flawed assumptions of cost and delivery - GIGO is a common phrase in the technical world that applies to his calculations, google it if you've never heard of it before. Lastly, if you believe transmitting a "ping signal" to maintain a satellite connection (or similar radio wave based connection) requires the same level of power on the transmitter as sending a continual stream of data (emphasis on send, not recv) then your understanding of both radio signals and internet telecommunications is so severely lacking it's not even worth engaging with you on the subject. Do you think your mobile phone is continually transmitting a signal at full power to the tower every millisecond in order to maintain your phone service and be able to receive calls?
1
@randomname4726 that is very big of you, much respect
1
@Fourier21 i used to have a lot of respect for TF as these busted videos used to contain scientific justification and were decently researched, but videos such as this one have diminished that significantly. I've been a subscriber for years and from my observations it seems that Trump was the turning point and broke him - the first few cracks started to show when he was doing his rona viwus update videos. He would go on these long rants about Trump with no evidence or justification just purely speculation and opinion - its perfectly fine for him to despise Trump, Musk, etc everyone's entitled to their opinion but he used to be better as separating opinion from fact. Im not sure exactly why Musk suddenly then became a target too, not just from TF but others seem hell bent on discrediting and mocking him too, i have my suspicions but the point is its the same behavior and approach which is in stark contrast to his other "busted" videos. Ie poorly researched, bad assumptions and the same stale bad faith arguments in multiple videos - this one is a classic example, 15 minutes of recycled material, 10 minutes of napkin maths and then lastly 5 minutes on what likely triggered TF to make the video (the satellites getting in the way for astronomers) It wouldn't be so bad if he stuck to his strengths, which is physics and chemistry.. but the moment he starts to venture into topics such as economics, business and entrepreneurialism it highlights his weaknesses and reveals to me that TF isn't as knowledgeable as he potrays. These are very different worlds and why i think TF doesn't understand how people like Musk and Trump are successful - if you've worked your whole life as a professor doing science stuff in an academic environment it's a foreign concept that often "good, not perfect, is good enough" along with many other business decisions which often conflict with what is best scientifically. It's kind of a shame as i used to look forward to watching his busted videos, now they are regularly tedious to sit through and leave me thinking, "geez how petty". But hey, maybe it's all entirely a ruse and TF is fully aware of what he is doing and it's purely intentionally to game the algorithms and get more of those ad revenue dollars. Not that this would make it any better, but at least it makes more sense logically as to why he would make videos like these as opposed to him simply having a juvenile gripe and needing to vent. Completely agree on the cult remark, it's truely amazing and hilarious at the same time - confession projection comes to mind any time i see one of them personally attack someone of this rather than the substance of what was said.
1
@Fourier21 it's like you can read my mind, could not agree more. Intellectual pride is a vice for many academics im afraid
1
@fazergazer if the aim is melting ice, sure, maybe it'd require 100W.. and as i've already stated i'm not denying the current equipment is drawing 100W but that doesn't equate to 100W being the minimum necessary scientifically. I'd imagine it'll be higher that a regular uni directional antenna, as the dishes are using some cool beam bending science to adjust for the movement of the satellites rather than physically moving the dish. But anyone thinking that values from the a beta implementation can be used as absolutes doesn't understand the design & development cycle. You first focus on a functioning implementation or in lamens terms getting it to work, which often involves over compensating for any potential weak/failure points, then you focus on optimization and efficiency. The average joe may be fooled by TF's napkin maths but quite frankly he's smart enough to know what he's done here in the video is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. You think the first cable tv satellite dishes where the same size as the ones today? Or take radio antennas on cars, you seen those little shark fins on the back of BMW's.. guess what they are. Or even headlights on cars, actually even simpler than that are LED lights.. 25 years ago white LEDs where barely a thing and most certainly not bright enough to light a room. Look where we are now... But yep, the energy required to melt ice is proof that starlink won't be economically viable for the portion of the population without access to highspeed broadband today. If only they knew about thermodynamics they wouldn't waste their money on starlink, what fools eh?
1