CybranM

The entire move to the realtime raytracing paradigm, which has enabled AAA game devs to get very sloppy with development by not really bothering to optimize any lighting, nor textures

You clearly don't know what you're talking about here. Ray tracing has nothing to do with textures and very few games force you to use RT. What is "allowing" devs to skimp on optimization (which is also questionable, older games weren't perfect either) is DLSS and other dynamic resolution + upscaling tech

Have you tried 4k? The difference is definitely noticeable unless you play on like a 20" screen

You don't deserve the downvotes, you're right. If everyone used the "iTs NoT sTeAlInG" argument then no digital works would ever be profitable and everyone would lose.

Such a pointless thing to do which puts a massive target on your back for no reason. Backlash is deserved and maybe he learned something

Would you mind sharing which movie it was?

Where am I shifting the goalposts exactly?

"because being used in war is a reason why it is a bad ISP", like I said before, I very much doubt the Ukrainians would agree with your take on this.

"if a war breaks out and a power can destroy them, we’re talking global breakdown of internet via starlink" ?? Do you think anyone is advocating we should replace all internet connections with Starlink?

"Then there’s also the piss poor service, the poor number of total connections, the lack of redundancy, the cost," Should I copy-paste about Ukraine again?

"ecological damage" negligent amount compared to actually wasteful industries

You claim "Starlink is a bad ISP" because you think the satellites are wasteful, I disagree since Starlink can provide a global service to areas where it's needed in a way no one else can. I don't know what you find so difficult to understand? "a TrUe LeMmY eXpErIeNcE"

I'm ignoring that fact because its mostly irrelevant to this conversation. Would the Ukrainians prefer if it was controlled by a more reliable ally? Of course

"Regular" satellite internet is nowhere near what starlink offers and it's pretty telling you assume it is.

An actual problem that you've not mentioned is the interference with ground based telescopes

I agree with almost everything you wrote. Purely speculation but the starlink terminals might be cheaper? The latency/bandwidth would also be significantly worse with O3b since it's in medium earth orbit compared to starlinks low earth orbit. "Regular" satellite internet is prohibitively expensive with even worse bandwidth/latency.

I also agree that people shouldn't be living in the Amazon but they are and we can't really force them to leave.

Maybe do a cursory Google search before being confidently incorrect

I'm sure digging fiber out in the Amazon rainforest will turn out great

From what I understand the Ukrainians never had control of the nukes, they didn't actually have the launch codes to use them.

Regardless, having global access to the internet is great. Ask the people living in remote areas of the Amazon, no chance for them to get fiber, or Africa, or remote islands, or ships/airplanes.

If youre speaking of rural America not needing starlink because fiber is a thing, then you should broaden your horizons