That said, what examples do you have for CSS’ work falling apart under scrutiny?
I’m not being a dick. I genuinely just would like to know as like to make my own informed decisions and would be happy to say I am wrong if I am
Here is an example of his Starlink debunking video taken apart (note it consists of 4 parts, links on the bottom) https://littlebluena.substack.com/p/common-sense-skeptic-debunking-starlink
Appreciate that mate
I’ll have a read through and rewatch the video as soon as I have a chance this arvo
Edit: Ok, watched and read through
The article does have some valid points RE: some calculations, download speeds and comparing starlink to cable broadband. However, I wouldn’t say CSS’ work falls over because of it.
Some notes below:
42,000 sats - maths error for some of CSS’ calculations as article says 2 stages - 12,000 in stage 1, 30,000 in stage 2 and apparently stage 1 and stage 2 won’t have satellites up at the same time (so annual costs on 42,000 sats would be incorrect - although, I haven’t verified that). However, they do want to launch 42,000 sats in total + replacements for failures so a lot of CSS’ calculations stand.
Dishy - article talks about possible changes in future and the author had heard of people getting their dish replaced free of charge. Not hard facts or written policy.
On that, there are a few points in article are “I have seen” / “I have heard of X” / “in the future” / “it’s a beta” etc. arguments. I don’t think those are valid points as are speculation / anecdotal evidence (to be fair, CSS did do this too when talking about most people leaving the dish on the ground).
Article ignores the space junk issue.
Article ignores market and financial stability for Starlink.
Over all, thank you Wraper and I appreciate you flicking that through
It gave me some insight into some errors and I will keep them in mind
However, I don’t think it fundamentally changes the points made in CSS’ video