SpaceX Starlink SMS Enabled for Millions in Hurricane Impacted States

9 thoughts on “SpaceX Starlink SMS Enabled for Millions in Hurricane Impacted States”

1. [ “The 99% of climate scientists, who are funded almost exclusively by government grants”

   What are significant&valid points of the 1% contradicting above main theories?
   Not because we would not trust the 99%, but they could be wrong (less likely on reasons&empirical data&modelling of a current situation, but maybe more likely on (all) effects predicted?)
   and if it would be a ‘civilized tyranny of the majority of the mature’, there’s a lot more of society groups to involve
   (a diamond on its tip has low stable base compared to a based pyramid)

   CO2 enrichment in atmosphere (observable&measurable by almost everyone, globally) and primary energy consumption (no reason for to doubt these public statistics) correlate. ]

2. No worry. If Trump is elected, he will say global warming is a hoax and facilitate burning even more coal and fossil fuels. He doesn’t care for our planet or America. The weather patterns in the last few years are getting extreme; no doubt about that; plenty of evidence. Last year we had a year of supercells and mega floods. The first time in 30 years, five of our trees were broken in half. This year had fewer supercells, but heat waves were unseen, unmatched, one after another. Things won’t get fixed by themselves. Perhaps AI will help us to reduce damage or mitigate it. 

   • Yes but he has a solution, stop the hurricanes in their tracks by dropping a nuke on it.

     • I dislike the partisan comments on a “science blog”. The “evidence” of “climate change” is subjective – actually it is quite partisan. Everybody “knows” everything (especially those on Reddit) instantaneously with the little computer in the palm of their hands. The information comes down through a few sources (google, meta, microsoft); the liberal collectivist’s mind incorporates whatever the degreed “authorities” or “consensus” declare to be “the science”. The 99% of climate scientists, who are funded almost exclusively by government grants, and form the consensus that climate change is a thing… fretting about +2C or whatever (when the Delaware river froze over in 01/2017) are guilty of incredible hubris. Apparently, there is one knob and it is CO2 (reductive, but catchy!). They’re pop-scientists, like those that invented all the additional degrees of freedom in the binary state of being male or female. Step out of your hometown and go to the tropics; I do this every couple years. Observe: the islands are not being swallowed-up (subsiding/sinking is not sea level rise). Observe: the limestone remains of coral reefs before and behind (into higher elevation) you… are they thousands, or millions of years dead? Although sea level is not static on millennial or hundred-thousand year time scales, it has not risen by any measure since the Statue of Liberty (pick your landmark) was erected, despite all the clamor about “warming”.

       So please… the presidential candidate you dislike cannot [for example] force the state of New Jersey to re-open the coal plants that were literally torn down these past 5 years yielding my $640 July 2024 electric bill. Recall the Governors were the ones that shut the country down during ColdVid – although the former president initially went along with the advice of the chief medical bureaucrat. Most readers on here do not favor coal – only the governments of China, India, Indonesia, etc. “favor coal” building new capacity. That said, the decision isn’t up to the inhabitants of the blogosphere. I just saw a label on a refrigerator at work with a warning that it contained “refrigerants” (go figure)… as if the responsibility for maintaining the ozone layer was somehow pushed from DuPont to the consumer by application of a sticker. It’s quite silly… motivating the public against such things they cannot manufacture or affect themselves…. get everybody spun up all the time.

       • The scientific consensus is that all the evidence points to the existence of global warming and climate change. Statements like “The 99% of climate scientists, who are funded almost exclusively by government grants” betray the fact that you have no idea on how the scientific community works.
         Scientists COMPETE
         -for grants
         -for academic positions
         -for students and postdocs
         The main job for a scientist is to discover something new or to discover that something that was considered true is indeed false.
         This is why science is self-correcting, not because of some noble ideal shared by all researchers but because the only way to get those grant money and resources is to prove that you are a bit better at understanding your field than your peers.
         When you submit your work for publication, you submit it to journals that will send it TO YOUR COMPETITORS IN THE FIELD that will try to dismantle your work and ask for more data to be convinced. /This is why peer revision is important, because it is and adversarial process).
         Imagining that you have people sitting on groundbreaking data and not competing for grants and better salaries to follow some sort of global conspiracy is at the same level of delusional.

         • The process sounds very robust: climate scientists competing for grants instead of finding work in the private sector. I’m delusional to imagine that wouldn’t uncover the story of the century (it’s always ‘of the century’ – storms and whatnot). Actually, if you don’t uncover something, why would the funding continue? You have to ‘find’ a Higgs Boson or an oscillating neutrino from the sun occasionally or no more money for super conducting spallation slapper super conductors. The longer I work in the private sector, the less respect I have for those that make their career in the parallel government sector (e.g. the DOE and national labs). That is to say, in my own field of nuclear energy, I would have accomplished MUCH LESS, and undoubtedly accumulated MUCH LESS knowledge had I signed on with one of the weapons labs or ORNL, etc. The national labs used to lead: BORAX, Shippingport, MSRE, etc., now they gild the lilies of models/concepts from the 80s on supercomputers and hand out GRANTS to cronies with bad ideas like Kairos Power. Look at our favorite pinata, the ITER. Don’t tell me publicly research is useful outside of DARPA and practical military stuff – maybe some NASA projects. The vast majority is waste for government lifer bureaucrats.

           • In my personal experience the fact that in academia every lab in a given field competes worldwide with labs that are in nations with very different political/economic/social/religious and whatnot views makes academia way more competitive and transparent than industry. In industry you have companies that are too big to fail and can go along for decades exerting undue influences (a company might be polluting or less efficient, while competitors innovated with a less polluting tech and so on but if the company is preferred as part of national habit, because there are protective tariffs against competitors and so on… the company remains in business. In academia, you either publish something new and interesting (and continue to do so), or sooner or later you will get scooped by someone else in the field. They will get invited to the field conferences and will make a name for themselves and you won’t.

             Regards.

           • As a point of science the general consensus (Worldwide) is that climate change is happening.
             As a point of economics the building insurance premiums in Florida tend to support this.
             As a point of science I am not sure that I would totally trust scientists employed in the private sector as they have a long history of saying whatever they are paid to say e.g. lead in petrol is fine.

     • Magic markers on a map work well too.

Comments are closed.