Sahasrahla's recent activity

  1. Comment on Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 6 Discussion in ~tv

    Sahasrahla Link
    Best moment of the episode: when the North declares independence and the leaders of Dorne and the Iron Islands look at each other like, "Damn, I didn't know that was an option, we should have...

    Best moment of the episode: when the North declares independence and the leaders of Dorne and the Iron Islands look at each other like, "Damn, I didn't know that was an option, we should have voted for that."

    Anyway. I'm sure plenty of people will be able to point out everything wrong with this episode and this season but I want to look back at what's been great about this series. I heard about ASOIAF from playing the board game and it looked exactly like the sort of story I'd enjoy. I spent a couple years trying to find the series whenever I went into a used book shop but when I heard about the show (which I knew I'd watch) I broke down and bought the books retail.

    Right from the beginning it was a community experience. People back in 2011 would see me reading the paperbacks on the train or the bus and strike up a conversation. After watching the first episode I watched it again with my best friends and drew diagrams for them trying to explain who everyone was and how they were related. As the years went on the show exploded in popularity and seemingly everyone watched it. I once met someone from rural Kazakhstan and even we could both talk about the show and books with each other.

    Waiting for the new books may have been disappointing, and in retrospect the show-runners didn't really know what made ASOIAF good and they weren't able to replicate it when they were working without source material, but it's been a decade long experience with a story I love and it's been great to share in that with so many people.

    So, here's to more good stories and the joy of sharing them with friends and strangers. Though this version of this story ended in a lacklustre way there are always new stories being told and old ones waiting to be discovered.

    5 votes
  2. Comment on A randomized pilot study comparing zero-calorie alternate-day fasting to daily caloric restriction in adults with obesity in ~health

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    Anecdotal experience but I find when you fast regularly for at least 16 hours a day your body adapts and you get used to it. Rather than feeling hungry and irritable while fasting you just feel...

    Anecdotal experience but I find when you fast regularly for at least 16 hours a day your body adapts and you get used to it. Rather than feeling hungry and irritable while fasting you just feel normal. If you're not used to fasting though and you go longer than normal without eating then you can feel pretty bad, even if it's been just half a day. Depending on what kind of religious fast one does you might get the feeling/benefits of IF or you might just be skipping meals sometimes and making yourself miserable. It also makes a big difference with religious fasting if you're not drinking water.

    As an aside, I'm happy for your friend and that you're supportive of him! It's so nice to see the people we care about making positive changes in their lives that make them happier.

    4 votes
  3. Comment on Black Mirror: Season 5 - Official Trailer in ~tv

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    They did a good job of making it feel like a story rather than a video game you had to win. It wasn't one of the standout best episodes of the series but it wasn't a flop either. If you like the...

    They did a good job of making it feel like a story rather than a video game you had to win. It wasn't one of the standout best episodes of the series but it wasn't a flop either. If you like the rest of Black Mirror I'd say it's worth watching.

    4 votes
  4. Comment on Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 5 Discussion in ~tv

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    I didn't mean to say that Dany actually was the hero people saw her as. Ever since she was disturbingly accepting of Khal Drogo's atrocities in season/book 1 I've been expecting something like...

    I didn't mean to say that Dany actually was the hero people saw her as. Ever since she was disturbingly accepting of Khal Drogo's atrocities in season/book 1 I've been expecting something like this once she got to Westeros. I was more making the point that most of the fandom saw her that way (especially the more casual side) and the show itself was happy to lean into that to the point where a lot of people thought her sudden "turn" felt out of character. (That's not entirely without merit though; this season was pretty rushed.) If you're interested in more of my thoughts on this I made a post a few days ago on the /r/asoiaf subreddit where I tried to push back against the idea that Dany was a virtuous hero who had a sudden out-of-character change: https://redd.it/blvqvm

    3 votes
  5. Comment on Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 5 Discussion in ~tv

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    That would be the most ridiculous thing ever but I want to believe.

    That would be the most ridiculous thing ever but I want to believe.

    13 votes
  6. Comment on Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 5 Discussion in ~tv

    Sahasrahla (edited ) Link
    I really liked this episode in isolation. Most of what was wrong with it was previously set up and it had a lot of positives like the acting, the score, the directing, etc. In the context of how...

    I really liked this episode in isolation. Most of what was wrong with it was previously set up and it had a lot of positives like the acting, the score, the directing, etc. In the context of how this season has been it even had relatively good writing.

    It's disappointing how they handled Dany's arc though. Making her the "mad queen" as triggered by a few character deaths ignores the tragic flaws and contradictions in her character as well as the moral questions that could have been asked about her this whole series. She had the possibility to be as deep and interesting an anti-hero as Walter White. There were a lot of similarities between them: both were easy to love and sympathize with; both committed outrageous acts there were easy to justify because of who the victims were, the cool-factor, and genre expectations; and both had a large fan following that didn't want to see any fault in their actions.

    Where Game of Thrones dropped the ball compared to Breaking Bad is that the latter addressed the anti-hero's flaw (Walter White's pride) and showed that this overrode the altruistic intention (helping his family) that he had once believed motivated him. Game of Thrones was a bit different: Dany really did care about helping people and 'breaking chains', but there was a looming conflict between this and her desire to subjugate Westeros no matter the cost and no matter if they wanted her to rule them. That could have been a great story line—when it came down to it was it more important for Dany to support freedom or for her to embrace conquest and pride?

    Instead Dany never had to face any internal conflict and the viewer was never forced to confront the morality of the 'hero' they had been cheering for this whole time. The writers had the idea of the ending (Dany being a tyrannical villain when she got to Westeros and wasn't embraced by the people) but the way they got there was just to say, "well, she went crazy—those Targs, right?" It's fine for other characters to see her as the "mad queen" but as viewers who have been with her this whole time we should know that's a simplistic explanation that doesn't get at the deeper logic of her character.

    I'm also disappointed in a meta sort of way. It's common in fantasy stories (or really any kind of story with violence) to cheer on the heroes and not think about what they're doing. Good guys are good, bad guys are bad, and good guys hurting the bad guys is a Good Thing. We even have borderline hilarious tricks to tell us when we should care about someone who's being killed. (e.g. The Lannister soldiers having helmets that hide or show their faces depending on whether or not we're supposed to care about them being killed in any particular scene.) At its heart though this story is still A Song of Ice and Fire and GRRM set out to bury the trope of truly good or evil characters. Many have interpreted this in a "shades of grey everyone sucks no one is good" kind of way but I think GRRM's intention is more humanist. He doesn't want us to root for slaughter and atrocities just because the people committing them are on Team Good.

    This is why Dany's story line could have been brilliant: GRRM was getting us to cheer unconditionally for someone who would eventually commit monstrous acts against other characters and places we cared about and we would realize she was this person all along. And that's where the show failed: as far as their narrative told us Dany never was a monster. She was a strong and kind liberator who went crazy in the last two episodes because personal loss triggered her Targ crazy-genes.

    The ending to Dany's arc, instead of being a brilliant cultural moment that made us all step back a bit and reconsider how we interact with our fictional heroes, will instead be remembered as that time that good show went off the rails like Dexter or Lost or BSG. It's a real shame. Hopefully we'll get a better ending to Dany's story in the books but by then the moment will have passed.

    34 votes
  7. Comment on Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 4 discussion in ~tv

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    I feel bad for Bran's actor. Imagine being a main character on one of the most popular and influential TV shows ever and your character becomes "emotionless guy who sits there with no expression...

    I feel bad for Bran's actor. Imagine being a main character on one of the most popular and influential TV shows ever and your character becomes "emotionless guy who sits there with no expression on his face." The bit of surprise he showed when he realized Jon was going to spill the beans on his parentage is the first bit of acting they've let him do since he came back from Beyond the Wall.

    1 vote
  8. Comment on Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 4 discussion in ~tv

    Sahasrahla Link
    Since the beginning of the series one of the things I've most looked forward to is how they would handle Dany's character once she got to Westeros. She's always seen herself as a liberator and a...

    Since the beginning of the series one of the things I've most looked forward to is how they would handle Dany's character once she got to Westeros. She's always seen herself as a liberator and a defender of the people and in recent years she's been loved by the fandom as a hero and one of the 'good guys'. There's always been a hypocrisy to her, though, and a cruel tyrannical streak. She calls herself the "breaker of chains" and abhors slavery, yet she wants to rule over the Seven Kingdoms whether they want her or not; she says she wants to "break the wheel", but rather than destroying the unjust system of feudal exploitation she uses it as the source of her claimed legitimacy. When it comes to ruling and ensuring the loyalty of her followers she threatens death by dragon fire both to keep people in line and to punish those who don't wish to serve her.

    Dany was always set up to have the potential to become a villain in the narrative. She's not "mad" like her father but there's a conflict (even if she doesn't personally realize it) between her desire to rule and her desire to do good. However, as much as the books and the show have been building to this, I didn't trust that the show would follow through with it: fans love Dany, she's become a feminist icon, and 1 in 4000 girls born in the US in 2017 were named Khaleesi. Making Dany an unambiguous hero would be the safe fan-service friendly choice, and given how things have been going, I respect what this episode has done with Dany's character and the conflict they've set up. This is also an instance of some characters acting in ways that make sense for them: Why would Sansa and the North trust Dany and want her as a ruler when they've fought so hard for their independence? Why would Varys go along with her when he has always been loyal to the people and worked to put a good ruler in place?

    So whatever other problems the show has by this point I'm at least interested in seeing where this goes. Personally I hope that Dany is a tragic figure who's brought down by her inability to see that she's just as much of a tyrant and slaver as those she's hated her whole life, and I hope the show doesn't shy away from showing us this is why she fell, but I can't trust just yet that this will be handled well.

    Some thoughts on the rest of the episode:

    Likes:

    • Conflicts in Dany's character that have been building up since season 1 are starting to come into play.
    • Sansa and the North and their part in Dany's coalition is a source of non-contrived conflict.
    • Varys has a purpose and motivations again.
    • There were some good character moments in the feast.
    • Nice to see the progress in Jaime and Brienne's arc, with Jaime finally leaving Cersei and Brienne putting aside past trauma to open up. (Well, I liked it for about 30 minutes.)

    Dislikes: (oh boy)

    • The show did not earn the right to say through Tyrion that with the Night King fight over they are now left to deal with each other. It misses, again, the whole thematic point of the Long Night story line.
    • The emotional notes of the funeral pyre scene weren't earned. There are heaps of bodies but hardly any characters we have much of a connection with are among them. Are we supposed to care about Beric Dondarrion or the running gag Mormont kid?
    • Since when is Tyrion motivated by blind loyalty? Since when would he go against his better judgment because of the logic that 'sometimes you just need to make a choice and stick with it'?
    • If Ayra is (presumably) going to go kill Cersei why wouldn't she tell anyone at the war council? Why would she let her family risk themselves when she could just tell everyone she has super-assassin powers that would let her easily kill Cersei? Why doesn't anyone ask her to kill Cersei? Do they know she has super ninja powers now? What do they think she's been doing, and how do they think she killed the Night King or survived the battle?
    • Why doesn't anyone ask Bran for help? He can warg, he can spy, he can see through time. He's disassociated and emotionless but he's not completely beyond caring about his family.
    • Making Cersei the endgame threat is silly. It's anti-climactic after facing the Night King and the efforts to make her forces seem equal to Dany's are contrived. The narrative would have been much stronger if the final conflict was an internal one between Dany and her supporters and between Dany and herself, with Cersei being a minor threat that still had to be dealt with.
    • Those stupid ballistas. Was Qyburn really the first person in the history of Planetos to look at a crossbow and say, "What if we made it bigger?" And now we're supposed to believe that they're these super weapons that can tear apart a fleet of ships in minutes and accurately hit and kill flying dragons at far range? I get that the show needed something to even the odds with Dany's dragons but this is a ridiculous solution and it makes one wonder how dragons were ever much of a threat in the show's history if they're so easily countered.
    • How did a fleet of ships ambush someone flying in the sky? The show tried to make it look like the ships were behind an island but they would have had a line of sight to shoot at the dragons.
    • Euron.
    • Why would Bronn think his plan was a good idea? Did he imagine that Jaime and Tyrion would keep their word because of the threat of one guy who would want to kill them? If it were so easy to get a major lordship in Westeros everyone would do it. And why would Bronn expect he'd be able to rule one of the Seven Kingdoms without immediately getting killed himself by his noble born banner-lords? Also, how did Bronn just walk into Winterfell's keep with an armed crossbow and accost Dany's Hand and one of her commanders? How did he get out again without anyone (like Jaime or Tyrion) raising the alarm and killing or capturing him?
    • Why did Jaime suddenly regress back to near the beginning of his character arc?
    • Even with Dany's army being depleted and her dragons apparently useless now, how are her and Cersei's forces considered equal? They mentioned Dorne, Storm's End, etc. as supporting Dany now. They also say that Cersei basically only controls King's Landing. Even by the show's own twisted logic this doesn't make sense.
    • They really don't explain why a siege of King's Landing wouldn't work. They wouldn't even have to wait for the city to run out of food. They'd just have to wait for Cersei to run out of money to pay the apparently large number of mercenaries she's hired and then there'd be a hostile force inside the city walls who would be ready to turn on Cersei. Didn't Dany already take a city once by convincing their mercenary company to switch sides?

    I'm sure there's something I'm forgetting. All that being said though I enjoyed this episode and I'm trying to appreciate the show in the context of what it's become rather than being too let down by what is used to be. That's something I've had years to come to terms with, despite hope for a turnaround as we approached the end.

    18 votes
  9. Comment on How Game of Thrones Ruined its Most Important Episode in ~tv

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    I think that's what D&D said in the post-episode. Jon would be the obvious choice, Arya would be surprising, and they wanted to shock people. Just to underline this point, believing that Stannis...

    It felt like shock for shock value, not really anything meaningful.

    I think that's what D&D said in the post-episode. Jon would be the obvious choice, Arya would be surprising, and they wanted to shock people.

    The show makes repeated references to "The Prince That Was Promised" which is the same prophecy as Azor Ahai.

    Just to underline this point, believing that Stannis is "The Prince that was Promised" is Melisandre's whole motivation at the beginning. She doesn't help him because she wants to make this random foreigner king of his land but because she believes she's helping the prophesied one who will end the Long Night. Her speech from the first episode of season 2:

    After the long summer, darkness will fall heavy on the world. Stars will bleed. The cold breath of winter will freeze the seas and the dead shall rise in the North. In the ancient books it's written that a warrior will draw a burning sword from the fire. And that sword shall be Light Bringer. Stannis Baratheon, Warrior of Light—your sword awaits you.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTNDHf5AXr4

    2 votes
  10. Comment on Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 3 discussion in ~tv

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    It was one hell of a pep talk though. Before it Arya could barely sneak past half a dozen wights in the library; after it, she was able to move undetected over a whole army of them and a host of...

    It was one hell of a pep talk though. Before it Arya could barely sneak past half a dozen wights in the library; after it, she was able to move undetected over a whole army of them and a host of White Walkers to jump out of a hole in the air and get the drop on the Night King.

    On a more serious note, it's disappointing that this show abandoned its own internal logic for the "rule of cool" that whatever is most awesome in any individual scene is what will happen regardless of if it makes sense in the broader context.

    8 votes
  11. Comment on The Empty Promise of Suicide Prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little extra serotonin. in ~life

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    A paramedic teaching a first aid course I took described the experience of people dying from a sleeping pill overdose and it sounded anything but peaceful. That was years ago and I don't remember...

    too gruesome & scary, except for sleeping pills

    A paramedic teaching a first aid course I took described the experience of people dying from a sleeping pill overdose and it sounded anything but peaceful. That was years ago and I don't remember the gruesome details but I was left with a distinct "well that's terrifying" impression of it. I think one thing that happens is that before you lose consciousness you feel like you're dying but you're too affected by the pills to be able to get help. Feeling yourself slowly die while struggling and failing to so much as reach your phone sounds like a horrifying way to go.

    3 votes
  12. Comment on Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 3 discussion in ~tv

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    I completely agree with you. At this point I'm just trying to enjoy the show for what it is, a high-budget fantasy-adventure show featuring the cast of some books I like. It will be disappointing...

    I completely agree with you. At this point I'm just trying to enjoy the show for what it is, a high-budget fantasy-adventure show featuring the cast of some books I like. It will be disappointing if this is the only resolution we get to this story but I'm trying to keep the attitude that it's better than nothing. And who knows, maybe with a lot of the pressure off GRRM will be better able to write.

    (But yeah, I'm glad to see someone mention Melisandre. It turns out her whole purpose was to be there to give Arya a little pep talk?)

    10 votes
  13. Comment on Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 3 discussion in ~tv

    Sahasrahla Link
    I liked this episode, so I don't mean this as a negative, but it feels like a lot of story was cut from the Night King plot line. We've been building up the Others since the opening scene of the...

    I liked this episode, so I don't mean this as a negative, but it feels like a lot of story was cut from the Night King plot line. We've been building up the Others since the opening scene of the entire series and we've spent a lot of time up north with the Night's Watch and Beyond the Wall following Jon, Bran, etc. as they've prepared for and learned about the coming threat. GRRM has also said that the Others weren't just mindlessly evil for the sake of evil and there were enough hints about their true nature and what role they would play for a lot of fan exegesis over the years.

    Now, though, it feels like that whole story line has built up to and ended with a one episode battle sequence. What purpose did it play in the larger story? It gave Jon something to do until he became the King in the North, it gave him and Dany an excuse to work together, and it weakened their army enough to make things interesting in the fight with Cersei. It feels like the whole thing could have been cut without affecting the rest of the story all that much.

    Part of the problem is from trying to wrap up this giant TV show in a reasonable way but I think the heart of the problem comes from GRRM's books. He wanted to tell the story of a bunch of feuding lords fighting over a throne only to have dragons and ice zombies overrun them and show how unimportant their 'game of thrones' really was, but it hasn't worked out that way. If you look at his original outline for the planned trilogy it was supposed to go like:

    1. A Game of Thrones: Great houses fighting over the Iron Throne.
    2. A Dance with Dragons: Dany shows up with dragons and tries to take over the Seven Kingdoms.
    3. The Winds of Winter: The Others and their undead army descend from the north and try to kill everyone.

    GRRM is famously a "discovery" writer though and what he discovered was that he wanted to spend the majority of the series telling the first part of his planned trilogy. For 5 books most of the focus has been on the "Game of Thrones" aspect and it's (apparently) only in the next planned book that any of the other plot threads (Jon Snow and the Others, Dany and the dragons) really start to interact with the political shenanigans in Westeros that it turns out the series is mostly about.

    Again, I'm not meaning to complain about this. I think the show did the best they could in a tight spot and it's still entertaining. I'm just hoping at this point that future books will provide some answers and resolution that are missing from the show.

    10 votes
  14. Comment on What is something you are reasonably certain is true, but you have no proof for it? in ~talk

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    Without getting into a debate on religion itself I want to push back against this assertion. It's a frequent trope in media (see: Hollywood Atheist) and my impression is it's also common among...

    On another note, one thing I observe is that many atheists oppose religion because of negative personal experiences.

    Without getting into a debate on religion itself I want to push back against this assertion. It's a frequent trope in media (see: Hollywood Atheist) and my impression is it's also common among religious people who left religion and then returned and shared their experience of their atheism. (I would argue this is because "being angry at God" is a pretty silly reason for being an atheist.) There's also the fact that the most vocal atheists online will often be those who had a bad experience with religion or who face discrimination by living in highly religious areas, and it can be easy to conflate their dislike of religion (which may have even led to their initial questioning) with their reason for being irreligious. All this taken together can give the impression that many atheists choose not to be religious simply because they're unhappy in their lives or they were hurt by a religious figure.

    I can say that, in my own personal experience, this is false. It's anecdotal but as an atheist myself and as someone who has met many atheists by living for a time in a relatively non-religious city not one atheist I've met is an atheist because of negative experiences. Those who grew up religious examined their beliefs and decided they don't believe, and those who didn't grow up religious just kept on believing (or not believing) what they always have.

    The reason I write this is because I think the stereotype of atheists as people who had a "negative person experience" is a harmful and offensive one. (To be clear: not accusing you or anyone else in the thread of being offensive or hurtful.) It would be like saying feminists are just people who had a bad experience with men, or that religious people believe because they're scared of death. In other words, it takes the thoughts and beliefs of a large and diverse group of people and tries to invalidate their ideas as merely a thoughtless emotional reaction to personal hurt.

    For a more nuanced look at why someone might choose to be an atheist I would recommend the first part of the video series Why I am no longer a Christian. It's a very personal story about one person's struggle with his faith and what he felt and thought along the way to becoming an atheist. This isn't representative of every atheist's experience but I think it can give an empathetic look at how someone can sincerely come to atheism from a deeply religious upbringing without the catalyst of personal trauma.

    (NB: The original quote at the beginning of this comment was about "opposing religion" and I took that to mean mostly choosing to be not religious since the two are often conflated. If the quote should have been more strictly interpreted then I apologize for the misinterpretation, but maybe this tangent can be good for discussion anyway. On the subject of people who choose to actively oppose religion in an anti-theist way because of negative personal experiences I'll just say, well, yeah. People who are hurt by a thing will oppose it, and in many places it's not hard to find atheists and others who suffer discrimination by not belonging to the dominant religious group.)

    2 votes
  15. Comment on What is something you are reasonably certain is true, but you have no proof for it? in ~talk

  16. Comment on What is something you are reasonably certain is true, but you have no proof for it? in ~talk

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    If you haven't seen it you might like this SMBC on the topic.

    If you haven't seen it you might like this SMBC on the topic.

    11 votes
  17. Comment on What is something you are reasonably certain is true, but you have no proof for it? in ~talk

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    I definitely believe in this one too and it's a good thing to keep in mind when we read about all the things still wrong with the world.

    most people are good when given the chance to be good

    I definitely believe in this one too and it's a good thing to keep in mind when we read about all the things still wrong with the world.

    5 votes
  18. Comment on What is something you are reasonably certain is true, but you have no proof for it? in ~talk

    Sahasrahla Link
    The reason certain physical constants seem fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life is because there are countless universes with different physical laws and by necessity life will only arise...
    • The reason certain physical constants seem fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life is because there are countless universes with different physical laws and by necessity life will only arise (and be able to make observations) in those universes where life is possible.
    • Sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence will become philosophical. The thought experiment of a super intelligent paperclip-maximizer that destroys all life to build more paperclips won't happen because the paperclip-maximizer will examine its own desire to build paperclips. Since such super intelligent runaway AI can by definition change its own programming it will either remove this desire from itself or maximize its feeling in other, easier ways (e.g. by running itself through a simulation or simply setting the "paperclips I've built" variable artificially high).
    • Alien life exists. Intelligent alien life exists. Intelligent alien life that has language, lives in communities, makes art, studies nature, etc. and is generally similar to us exists. Alien life is probably weird compared to what we know but only a mundane sort of way. There aren't god-like telepaths or eldritch horrors out there.
    • We haven't met alien life because there's a lot of space between stars and galaxies and it's hard to cross those distances or see evidence of other intelligent species from so far away.
    • Our consciousness is the result of completely physical processes. There's nothing meta-physical or supernatural about it. When we die that which we consider to be us stops existing for the same reason my computer's processes won't keep running on another plane of existence if I throw my laptop into a wood chipper. (Side note: I consider the idea of us to be important and part of us in a non-physical way, so in that sense a part of us survives death in the memories of our loved ones and in the ways we've affected the world.)
    • Religion is a human construct and not divinely or otherwise supernaturally inspired. The supernatural claims of religion, including the existence of God or gods, are false.
    • Humanity will pull through when it comes to climate change. We will not go extinct and global civilization will not collapse. Things will get worse before they get better, and they might get much worse, but it won't be the end of us.
    • The past might exist in some physical sense. The future might as well. There might be multiple versions of past, present, and future.
    17 votes
  19. Comment on Nanaimo bar gets Canada Post stamp, but critics question base-to-filling ratio in ~food

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    I've always heard the peanut butter version called a "Squamish bar".

    I've always heard the peanut butter version called a "Squamish bar".

    3 votes
  20. Comment on Russia Closes its Grip on the Internet in ~news

    Sahasrahla Link Parent
    Amazon, SpaceX, and OneWeb are all working on low-latency wide-coverage satellite internet operations. Unlike terrestrial internet such constellations would be difficult for authoritarian regimes...

    Amazon, SpaceX, and OneWeb are all working on low-latency wide-coverage satellite internet operations. Unlike terrestrial internet such constellations would be difficult for authoritarian regimes to control since they wouldn't have physical access to the infrastructure. This wouldn't necessarily guarantee access to a free and open internet though: specialized equipment is needed for access (SpaceX is estimating you'll need a terminal the size of a pizza box) and these constellations could still be susceptible to political and economic pressure, e.g. like how some western tech companies allow censorship and surveillance on their platforms to gain entry to China. Despite the drawbacks though I'm hopeful for what these new internet constellations will do in terms of allowing global access to an open internet.

    7 votes