"Technically"? It's just wrong and I'm not sure which they were intending. Similarly, "miles and miles per hour are different units, it's not just a technical distinction.
A journalist is reporting on something they don't understand.
That’s fair, it’s not ok to pretend desert has no life worth protecting.
However, there is a lot of it, and as far as impacted animals per acre, it’s got to be near the bottom. Thus of all the places to locate big solar projects, huge expanses of low life density flat land with lots have sun seems like it would minimize the harm.
As the article states, there's plenty of already disturbed land that can be used, instead of nature parks that harbor fragile ecosystems.
Also what people call "desert" isn't, like, the Sahara. There are many kinds of arid and semi-arid landscapes that people tend to underestimate because they aren't really habitable by humans or suitable for growing agricultural crops. The kinds of landscapes I'm referring are highlighted on the Friends of Nevada Wilderness website:
Yes, and deserts are just as susceptible to the effects of climate change as everywhere else. You have to build solar somewhere or they’re all doomed too.
I think you missed a 0. I've never heard of an AC unit for a house that's 400W. 4000W and above is more common.
Google:
> An AC unit's electricity usage varies by type, with window units using around 500–1,500 watts and central air systems using 3,000–5,000 watts, though usage can range from 2,000 to over 6,000 kWh annually for central units
Also, how much you use it during the year can vary hugely from 0 (when I lived near the coast) to like 10 hours a day for months in hot or cold places. There's not a standard, but 55kwh for a year means you live someplace that doesn't really need AC / heating.
I've never heard of `{number} {plural magnitude}` meaning `mag / number`. I've only ever seen it mean `number * mag`. As in 3-thousandths == 3 * 0.001 not 0.001 / 3.
I would say he's not in trouble for gaining access to systems, it's for extortion:
> He worked with Kurtaj and other members of Lapsus$ to hack tech giant Nvidia and phone company BT/EE and steal data before demanding a four million dollar ransom, which was not paid.
An FCC commissioner indicates that the FCC is yoinking the award because it thinks SpaceX won't hit the 2025 targets, yet many other award recipients have no service and no rollout and no speeds to even measure:
> What good is an agreement to build out service by 2025 if the FCC can, on a whim, hold you to it
in 2022 instead? In 2022, many RDOF recipients had deployed no service at any speed to any location at
all, and they had no obligation to do so. By contrast, Starlink had half a million subscribers in June 2022
(and about two million in September 2023). The majority’s only response to this point is that those other
recipients were relying on proven technologies like fiber, while SpaceX was relying on new LEO
technology.
As far as I can tell in a cursory reading, SpaceX Starlink applied for subsidies with enumerated requirements. They cannot meet those requirements, so the subsidy is rescinded.
Seems straightforward and doesn’t seem to matter, as far as I can tell, how many other companies couldn’t meet the requirements or don’t have the hardware to meet those requirements or whatever.
Unclear why this is “blatant corruption” or “crony capitalism” and in fact seems to be based in facts. Can you explain?
I'm getting the impression that some of the competitors haven't built anything to test yet. Based upon that, using the current performance of Starlink and comparing it to the hypothetical performance of others might not be fair. If Starlink is losing an award because of supposition, that's bad.
But I must admit that I haven't read all of the history here.
I think they’re not comparing to hypothetical performance of others, but comparing it to the threshold the FCC set originally, which SpaceX decided was achievable and so applied for subsidies based on their believed ability to hit the numbers.
For starters, last year (when this initial decision was made), a total of 22 applicants defaulted (i.e., didn’t meet the requirements)[0].
Some didn’t get their funding in order, others didn’t get their ETC certification arranged in time, others didn’t provide a viable proposal, and some withdrew their bid.
SpaceX falls in the latter category.
It’s important to understand that throughout the process, viability and progress are looked at, and rightly so; we’re talking about billions of dollars in taxpayer monies, and it would be silly to only look at the deadline and go “Whelp, you didn’t make it, guess the money is gone now.” Particularly when clawing back the money would be very cumbersome with someone notorious for not paying their bills and what they owe.
There are a couple of minimum requirements; for this debate and simplicity, I’ll highlight the minimum speed, which is 25/3Mbps.
You could’ve bid to provide service at that minimum level, but you also could bid for a higher speed tier (the speeds are divided into different tiers)[1].
Bidding a higher tier comes with a higher amount of subsidies, but it also means you need to meet the requirements of that higher tier. There is no “Oh well, just give me the subsidies of the lower tier”; you either meet the requirements tied to your bid or you don’t.
SpaceX made a bid for the “Above Baseline” tier, which requires them to provide 100/20Mbps.
There are a couple of ways the FCC tries to evaluate if the applicant can comply with the FCC requirements.
For one, they look at the technology the applicant said they would use. Mature and more reliable technologies will provide a clearer picture than newer and less reliable technologies, of course. I don’t think anyone here will argue that LEO satellites can provide the same consistency and quality in experience as fiber, for example.
They also look at historical achievements, especially concerning newer technology such as LEO satellites. Most other applicants don’t use LEO satellites but instead use fiber, for example.
Whether the fiber equipment is in use in RDOR areas or not is irrelevant; if the applicant says they’ll use the same equipment they’re operating in a different region, you can pretty much expect the same performance.
Starlink’s performance has been declining, with upload already falling well below 20Mbps.
Another part they look at is the long-form applications by the applicant (i.e., their plan for achieving it all). If the strategies aren’t realistic or based on predictions and assumptions that rely too much on unlikely positive outcomes, they are not considered reliable.
Again, it’s easier to put a shovel in the dirt than it is to launch rockets, so the historical performance of laying the infrastructure is going to look different depending on the technology used.
The fact of the matter is that Starlink is still too much of a question mark in a lot of points and not performing as expected and required, coupled with customers needing to purchase a $600 dish[2] and the FCC is rightfully going to wonder if it’s all achievable or not and if they money they manage is being put to good use.
That’s why, back in August of 2022, when the original decision was made, they summed it up as such[3]:
> The Bureau has concluded its review of LTD Broadband’s (LTD) and Starlink’s long form
applications. LTD proposes to deploy gigabit fiber to 475,616 estimated locations in 11 states.64 Starlink,
relying upon a nascent LEO satellite technology and the ability to timely deploy future satellites to
manage recognized capacity constraints while maintaining broadband speeds to both RDOF and non-
RDOF customers, seeks funding to provide 100/20 Mbps low latency service to 642,925 estimated
locations in 35 states. The Bureau has determined that, based on the totality of the long-form
applications, the expansive service areas reflected in their winning bids, and their inadequate responses to
the Bureau’s follow-up questions, LTD and Starlink are not reasonably capable of complying with the
Commission’s requirements. The Commission has an obligation to protect our limited Universal Service
Funds and to avoid extensive delays in providing needed service to rural areas, including by avoiding
subsidizing risky proposals that promise faster speeds than they can deliver, and/or propose deployment
plans that are not realistic or that are predicated on aggressive assumptions and predictions. We observe
that Ookla data reported as of July 31, 2022 indicate that Starlink’s speeds have been declining from the
last quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2022, including upload speeds that are falling well below 20
Mbps. Accordingly, we deny LTD’s and Starlink’s long-form applications, and both are in default on all
winning bids not already announced as defaulted. Because LTD has defaulted on its remaining winning
bids, we also dismiss as moot LTD’s petition for reconsideration of the Bureau’s denial of its request for
additional time to obtain an ETC designation in Nebraska and North Dakota.
Remember that by this time, SpaceX had hitched this wagon to their Starship configuration, abandoning the Falcon[4].
By now, when the FCC was looking if they should reconsider, the Starship program wasn’t doing so hot, only reaffirming their decision of last year.
> What good is an agreement to build out service by 2025 if the FCC can, on a whim, hold you to it in 2022 instead? In 2022, many RDOF (the award in question) recipients had deployed no service at any speed to any location at
all, and they had no obligation to do so. By contrast, Starlink had half a million subscribers in June 2022
(and about two million in September 2023).
And this scathing conclusion:
> I was disappointed by this wrongheaded decision when it was first announced, but the majority today lays bare just how thoroughly and lawlessly arbitrary it was. If this is what passes for due process and the rule of law at the FCC, then this agency ought not to be trusted with the adjudicatory powers Congress has granted it and the deference that the courts have given it. -- FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington
Sounds like you have taken this pretty far, do you have any example outputs? The only one I found via your website was a PDF with a low res image with no context.
Sure, we have a short deck[0] that gives an intro to our noise reduction, and also here is a folder[1] that shows off a calibration target we captured with a actual camera (20ms, f22) in low-light conditions: (original, 100x gain, 100x gain + ALIIS)
We also have some more raw data[2] where there is the original bayer data available as .npy files with 40db analog gain applied, however I think the calibration targets show off what we are able to accomplish more dramatically. Finally, we have a short youtube video[3] that shows off how it works when applied to video.
A journalist is reporting on something they don't understand.