

The problem with Starlink is it’s only ever a niche service. There’s a limit to how many satellites you can have in the sky over paying subscribers (as opppsed to, say, deserts or oceans) - I did some back of the envelope maths that put it at about 15 million subscribers with acceptable speeds, maybe double that with terrible service.
By comparison, Deutsche Telekom in Germany alone has 5 times as many mobile subscribers, and a similar number of fixed-line broadband. Amd best of all, Deutsche Telekom doesn’t need to replace all its infrastructure every 5 years when it falls to Earth.
So on what possible basis does Starlink warrant a “to the moon” valuation, and traditional providers don’t? Traditional providers can serve more consumers, at lower cost, with better return on assets…
Starlink, and batshit ideas about datacentres in space, exist for one reason: US infrastructure is complete shit. It would almost certainly be long-run a better investment to fix the power, water, and telecomms infrastructure on the ground, but right now you have a government that would rather private companies fire money into space than pay taxes.





I grew up in childhood on one meal a day (or one meal every two days often as not) due to poverty, and I guess it set up a pattern - I very rarely eat three meals a day in adulthood. I used to always skip breakfast (nowadays I tend to just have a yoghurt with my coffee mostly because I tell myself it’ll be healthy, not because I’m hungry), and then I usually have lunch OR dinner, but very rarely both.
Of course, when I was young I was horribly thin (6’3" and 110lbs when I left home at 18), now I eat considerably more, so that changed - but the meal habits didn’t.