The origins of EA were never in question, nothing new there. It was Peter Singer's work on maximising value for charitable outcomes. Comment section seems to be about something else altogether.

Maybe a book clarifying what it really is is a good idea.

But if it's a net positive, the point is made.

I think it's a case of judging a band by its fans. Enough dodgy billionaires have jumped on to create a poor image. Singer never said donating buys you a license to be evil.

I only know about SBF but SBF was a scammer. Are we surprised that scammers try to use anything that could give them a positive image in order to, you know, scam people ?

Also I don't see Elon Musk giving out his money to save non-white people's lives anytime soon

So who are we talking about here ?

Yes! Commenters seem to have jumper onto The Guardian's vibes about it rather than Singer's entirely reasonable logic.

That's not what it's about. Exploiting people to make money is not fine. Causing harm while mitigating it elsewhere defeats the point. Giving is already about the kind of person you are.

Arrests aren't the only way a company can be harmed. Being flagged or investigated is enough of a legal burden and reputational hit that it could be catastrophic. "Stumbling" is not a part of any network protocol. Over a network, viewing a link is indistinguishable from downloading its contents.

The US diverts trunks for interception and active attacks all the time. Jamming the internet to Greenland during an invasion would be trivial on multiple levels. This will make virtually no difference to national security. Good for the monopoly provider though.

If the concern is jamming, the solution is to have a diversity of service providers, not to assume you know who your enemy will be in a decade from now.

The sentiment is understandable. But jamming the satellite trunks to another country during an invasion would not be difficult for the US. It's not clear how choosing a French provider will prevent that.

There's a lot of ground between

Ally (which Greenland and the US were in 2024)

and

Active invasion

Starlink removing service is nowhere near as extreme as America jamming starlink (which would be a breach of international treaties)

Do you have credible evidence that the US is not an ally? I'm not talking about words said, hypotheticals etc. I mean actual laws passed?

Words said is all that humans will ever have. Do not downplay them.

No, doing things is what we do. Words sometimes help with this, but the actions are what counts. Watch what people do, not what they say.

Saying words is doing things.

In diplomacy words are actions.

Either way, trunks will use a network that is not under sovereign control. So sovereignty here means access must exclusively be through the locally controlled monopoly. Foreign powers will still have the ability to shut down or manipulate traffic, which is hardly sovereignty at all.

The biggest problem with Starlink's proposed solution would be that it would have been B2C - people in Greenland would talk to other people in Greenland through Starlink's satellites. That would put communication inside Greenland at the whims of another foreign power, which is a whole different level of loss of sovereignty than getting communication with the rest of the world cut off.

> Foreign powers will still have the ability to shut down or manipulate traffic, which is hardly sovereignty at all.

Apparently, some partners/"friends" are more likely to take military action against you than others.

If you're considering sovereignty and you have a choice between one partner who've said "I'll protect you" and another that said "Well, we'll never rule out military action against you", working together with one of those are obviously better for your sovereignty than the other.

This reads to me as letting perfect be the enemy of better.

Post-quantum ratchets - cool.

Now if they could solve notifications not consistently appearing between iOS and android devices...