Expert in compute/network infrastructure. Previously at IBM Research and an investment bank.

Austin, TX
Joined March 2007
“Woke more correct” type reading here, but professional services (finance, law, consulting, insurance, etc) literally do capture an outsize share of the surplus created by the underlying productive economic activity. They do this in large part by creating & manipulating various socially constructed procedural outcomes that exist on a spectrum from “civilizationally valuable but unintelligible to the population at large” to “outright self-serving grift” Everyone involved in these industries tells themselves they’re in the former category. Many are not. It’s true that a world without lawyers would be much worse and much less productive than a world that can resolve contract disputes peaceably. But that principle has limits. When you mint a surplus of lawyers, they don’t all keep increasing productivity. Some form agencies and NGOs and think tanks whose entire output sums to placing extractive gates in front of production. In the endgame, the production itself can even totally stall while the professional services people keep on extracting and extracting. California might never get highspeed rail, but a whole industry of people already collected a decade of six figure paychecks off of…? That’s just the most egregious example. Public equities markets may be a wonderful innovation, but US ECM teams charging 7% gross spread to 90%+ of companies trying to go public is obviously not the free market in action. Fees vary substantially everywhere else. Google got so offended by this grift they famously did a dutch auction, and the banks in response pilloried them and reduced investor demand to prevent other tech companies getting similar ideas (no marketing, no brokerages promoting them, negative quotes for media, mega friction for retail participants). Whatever you think of the whole affair, it’s obviously more complicated than “finance good” — major players have interests and they protect them by doing much more than just competing fairly. Private Equity gets a bad reputation for ruining corporate america and a lot of the heat it takes is misallocated. They really are being more efficient with capital. But the existence of the debt tax shield as currently written into the US tax code is not a hard fact of the universe. And if you want to maximize your returns under this current socially constructed procedural framework, you will end up shifting the surplus generated away from the employees, managers, and founders of corporate entities and towards centralized firms that use leverage to remove and extract any slack from the system. Insurance too. It’s this thing that obviously makes a whole bunch of systems work. It’s good that it exists. Also: many interactions with insurance systems are transparently cartel-like from the perspective of a customer, with regulatory capture (“socially constructed procedure”) and exploitative and extractive monetization dynamics. And of course that’s how it feels, because that’s what it is. No part of the system is a free market. Merely entering the system as an insurance carrier requires many levels of government approval, with delegated sub-industries (ratings agencies!) to farm out white collar salaries to more people. Again: the optimal level of insurance for a productive economy is obviously greater than 0. But also: the optimal size of the class who collects a salary skimming money off of productive industry through insurance premiums directly & indirectly is almost certainly smaller than ours is today. This is made doubly worse by the way that certain vice industries get subjected to higher and higher premiums to eventually “nudge” them out of existence without the need for legislation. Of course I’d rather live here than there. Don’t confuse reasonable critique with an inferior system. No need to be a revolutionary. But I try not to kid myself about what’s beneath the pretty lies we tell about our society.
There is a peculiar Third World malaise of thinking that everything of value is created by their primary industries, and all the more advanced economies like the US and Singapore and Malaysia do is steal all their profit from them. I can't tell if folks really believe that
10
42
2
437
20,329
Starlink, Starshield, GPS, and the Claims About “Hacking”: A Technical Explanation A post accusing Ukraine of “hacking” #Starlink is spreading rapidly on this platform. The technical claims in that post are incorrect. They seem based on a collection of rumors circulating on Telegram, including information from Russian channels. Unfortunately, this post and others like it are receiving an enormous number of likes and reposts. That's why I believe it's important to address these claims with clear technical explanations rather than allow misleading information to spread unchecked. This is a fairly detailed post, but I think the distinction matters. Some of the technical information below comes from my own research and detailed analysis of Starlink terminal firmware, particularly its GPS, PNT, and velocity-processing systems. #⃣ 1. What are Starlink and Starshield? People still frequently confuse the two. Starlink is SpaceX's commercial satellite internet service, designed for consumers, businesses, and other commercial users. Starlink supports operation in motion, but the permitted speed depends on the service plan, equipment, and geographic region. Under commonly available commercial plans, the maximum authorized operating speed is 160 km/h (100 mph). In Ukraine, Starlink terminals are subject to a specific speed restriction: they cannot operate at speeds above approximately 75–80 km/h. This Ukraine-specific restriction was introduced less than a year ago, in coordination with Ukrainian authorities, to prevent Starlink terminals from being used on drones. Starshield is SpaceX's government-focused product and service family, based on Starlink technology and developed for national security applications. It includes secure communications, Earth observation, and hosted payload capabilities. Some Starshield systems involve dedicated government spacecraft and infrastructure. However, Starshield communications services can also use the underlying Starlink satellite network. This distinction is important: Starshield does not necessarily mean a completely separate physical satellite constellation or entirely different user terminal hardware. SpaceX develops and operates the underlying Starlink infrastructure. The U.S. government procures Starshield capabilities through contracts, with ownership and operational control depending on the particular system and arrangement. The division of authority between SpaceX and the U.S. government has become especially relevant following the October 2026 incident. Unlike ordinary commercial Starlink service, Starshield configurations used for military operations in Ukraine have supported substantially higher operating speeds. #⃣ 2. Is Starshield available in Ukraine? Yes. Starshield is operational in Ukraine and is extensively used by the Ukrainian military. Starshield service has been used in Ukraine since approximately mid-2023. Subsequent U.S. government contracts and public reporting also confirm its availability. The United States has procured Starshield services specifically to support Ukrainian military operations. An October 2026 U.S. Senate letter explicitly confirms that Ukraine receives Starshield services procured by the U.S. government. Therefore, the idea that Ukraine is somehow obtaining Starshield capabilities by secretly modifying commercial terminals fundamentally misunderstands how these services are provided. How does the Ukrainian military use these services? The Ukrainian military uses both commercial Starlink and Starshield. Commercial Starlink is widely used because of its availability, relatively low cost, and excellent performance. For stationary installations and many other applications, commercial service is entirely sufficient. Starshield is used for specialized military applications, including drones and other platforms requiring reliable connectivity at higher operating speeds. These are capabilities provided through the Starshield service itself, not necessarily through unauthorized modifications to commercial Starlink hardware. Using Starshield for its intended and authorized military applications is not inherently a violation of its service terms. #⃣ 3. Regarding the October 2026 incident Beginning on October 13–14, Ukrainian military units encountered unexpected speed restrictions affecting Starshield connectivity. Terminals that had previously operated at substantially higher speeds began losing connectivity at approximately 160 km/h, with some reports describing interruptions at even lower speeds. These restrictions disrupted military operations, particularly those involving high-speed unmanned systems. The consequences were serious. Ukrainian officials reported that the restrictions interfered with drone operations, including efforts to intercept russian attack drones. The decision-making process remains disputed. Neither SpaceX nor the U.S. government initially accepted responsibility for imposing the restrictions. Subsequent reporting and statements from U.S. lawmakers raised questions about who authorized the changes and which organization had the ability to implement them. As of October 24, Ukraine's Ministry of Defense has officially reported that Starlink/Starshield connectivity is once again stable at speeds exceeding 400 km/h. #⃣ 4. Does Starshield require separate hardware? Not necessarily. This is one of the most important points in the entire discussion. Starshield is a government-focused service and technology family. In the case of satellite communications provided to Ukraine, existing Starlink terminal hardware can be provisioned to use Starshield service. In December 2024, Bloomberg reported that a Pentagon contract would provide Starshield access to an additional 2,500 Starlink terminals already deployed in Ukraine, on top of 500 terminals previously covered. The contracts therefore provided service for a total of 3,000 terminals. In practice, compatible commercial Starlink hardware can be reassigned to Starshield service through the appropriate authorization and provisioning process. This requires approval. It is not something that a customer can simply enable through the ordinary Starlink application. Are there specialized Starshield terminals? Yes. For example, there is a specialized variant of the Starlink Mini known internally as `mini1_rugged`. Based on my hardware research, this model uses an improved GNSS receiver, the Teseo V, instead of the receiver found in the regular Mini. However, despite having repaired and examined numerous terminals and maintaining contact with people working with this equipment, I have not encountered evidence of this specific variant being supplied to Ukraine. The Starshield terminals I have encountered or received information about in Ukraine are based on regular Starlink hardware. Some terminals arrive already configured for Starshield service. Others can be provisioned for it through the appropriate channels. The key point is simple: A regular Starlink terminal operating under an authorized Starshield service configuration is still a Starshield terminal from the service perspective. It does not need to be physically modified or “hacked” to obtain that service. #⃣ 5. Why does a Starlink/Starshield terminal require GPS? Three years ago, I published an article explaining why GPS is important for Starlink terminals and how to improve GPS reception on the hardware available at that time: olegkutkov.me/2023/11/07/con… Some of the technical details in that article are now outdated, but the fundamental principles remain relevant. A Starlink terminal requires sufficiently accurate position and timing information for network synchronization, beamforming, and other aspects of normal operation. Location information can also be used for geographic service authorization. Invalid or spoofed GPS data may interfere with these processes. Depending on the magnitude of the error and the firmware's ability to detect it, the terminal may lose connectivity or become unable to operate normally. Modern firmware also includes mechanisms to detect suspicious or inconsistent GPS information. When GPS data is considered unreliable, the terminal may attempt to use an alternative source of positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) information derived from Starlink's own satellite constellation. However, this fallback mechanism is not guaranteed to work reliably under every operating condition. This distinction helps explain why some hardware modifications focus on improving GPS reception or supplying more reliable positioning data, rather than bypassing Starlink's network authorization mechanisms. #⃣ 6. What is Starlink PNT? Starlink PNT is a positioning, navigation, and timing capability that derives information from signals transmitted by Starlink satellites. By combining satellite measurements with known orbital information, a terminal can estimate its position and movement independently of a conventional GPS receiver. Starlink firmware contains the necessary functionality to process these measurements and use them as an alternative positioning source. Initially, this functionality was more of an experimental feature. It was interesting from an engineering perspective, but its accuracy and reliability were limited. Over time, it has improved significantly. Modern implementations can provide useful positioning information, including when a terminal is moving. There are still measurement errors, uncertainties, and limitations, but Starlink-derived PNT can serve as an alternative when GPS is unavailable or unreliable. Nevertheless, conventional GNSS remains an important and generally preferred source of positioning and timing information in current terminal designs. For now. Can the terminal operate without GPS? Under certain conditions, yes. Starlink firmware provides a gRPC request called `dish_inhibit_gps`, which controls whether GPS is used as a position source. When GPS use is inhibited, the firmware can attempt to rely on alternative positioning information. A similar situation occurs when GPS data becomes unavailable because of hardware or communication problems. However, disabling GPS does not guarantee that the alternative positioning solution will be sufficiently accurate or available. It also does not automatically change the terminal's service permissions. #⃣ 7. How does a Starlink terminal determine its moving speed? The GPS receiver is a primary source of position and velocity information. Proprietary NMEA messages, including `TMPV`, carry information the terminal's motion-processing logic uses. The firmware does not necessarily trust these measurements without additional validation. The firmware can filter GPS-derived velocity and compare it with information from other available sources, including Starlink-derived positioning. The terminal also contains an inertial measurement unit (IMU), whose acceleration measurements can help evaluate movement and detect inconsistencies. The firmware applies thresholds and consistency checks to these measurements. These mechanisms run internally and aren't exposed as user-configurable settings. If GPS measurements differ significantly from the expected values or fail validation, the firmware can reject them. However, GPS validation and service-speed enforcement are two different things. Rejecting GPS data does not automatically mean that the terminal has exceeded the permitted operating speed. The terminal's service configuration determines whether operation at a particular speed is authorized. When the relevant speed policy is violated, the terminal may report a condition such as: `MOVING_TOO_FAST_FOR_POLICY` This distinction is essential when evaluating claims about GPS modification. Simply changing GPS-reported velocity does not automatically change the terminal's authorized operating speed or eliminate the firmware's internal validation mechanisms. As explained earlier, appropriately provisioned Starshield service supports high-speed operation without the same restrictions imposed on ordinary commercial configurations. Therefore, no additional “hacking” is required to obtain high-speed capability when that capability is already authorized as part of the service. Reliable GNSS reception remains desirable, however. This is one reason specialized terminal designs may incorporate improved receivers, such as the Teseo V used in the `mini1_rugged` variant. It also explains the existence of solutions intended to improve GPS reception or provide a more reliable PNT input. **Improving positioning reliability is not the same thing as bypassing service authorization.** #⃣ 8. How does Starlink geofencing work? There are two important factors: geographic service authorization and physical RF coverage. Understanding the difference is essential. Geographic service authorization Starlink uses geographic information to determine where service is available and whether a particular terminal is authorized to operate. The system uses logical geographic regions rather than relying exclusively on the physical boundaries of satellite beams. H3 is one geographic indexing system relevant to this discussion. It divides the Earth's surface into hierarchical hexagonal cells that represent geographic locations and regions. Geographic indexing provides a convenient way to manage coverage and service policies, but an H3 cell should not be confused with a physical satellite beam. Network authorization can depend on several factors, including geographic location, service configuration, terminal identity, and applicable restrictions. A terminal may be physically capable of receiving a satellite signal while still being denied access to the service. This is an important distinction when discussing restricted territories, including russia. Receiving a Starlink signal does not necessarily mean the terminal is authorized to connect to the network. Physical RF coverage Satellite beams cannot perfectly follow national borders or the boundaries of geographic indexing cells. An RF beam has a physical footprint determined by the satellite antenna, beam steering, operating conditions, and geometry. Its boundaries are not perfectly sharp. Consequently, a beam may illuminate areas on both sides of a national border even though the service is authorized on only one side. This is a normal characteristic of satellite communications, not evidence that geographic service restrictions have been disabled. The role of GPS in geofencing The terminal's reported location provides another source of information for determining whether it is operating in an authorized region. The network can use terminal positioning information, together with its own authorization rules, to determine whether service should be permitted. When operation is prohibited, the terminal may receive an appropriate disablement code from the network. These mechanisms should be understood as parts of a broader service authorization system, rather than as a single GPS check controlling everything. Can geofencing be bypassed by supplying modified GPS coordinates? This question requires some nuance. Changing the location reported by a GPS receiver may influence positioning-dependent decisions, but it does not automatically override network authorization. Starlink also has other information available to evaluate terminal operation, and its firmware includes mechanisms for detecting inconsistent positioning data. Large discrepancies can disrupt normal positioning and beamforming calculations, trigger validation failures, or cause the terminal to lose connectivity. Most importantly, changing GPS coordinates does not by itself grant a terminal permission to use a service or geographic region for which it is not authorized. #⃣ 9. So what exactly is being called a “Starlink hack”? This is where much of the confusion comes from. The modifications being discussed online are primarily related to improving GPS reception or providing the terminal with reliable positioning and timing information. These are technical solutions intended to improve connectivity and stability, particularly when the terminal is moving or operating in an environment with GPS interference. They do not automatically bypass Starlink's speed restrictions, geographic limitations, or network authorization mechanisms. As explained earlier, regular Starlink hardware can also operate under an officially authorized Starshield service configuration, which supports high-speed military applications. Neither improving GPS reliability nor using an authorized Starshield service constitutes hacking Starlink. It's important to understand these differences before making accusations based on photographs, rumors, or incomplete technical information. #⃣ Conclusion Starlink and Starshield use closely related technologies, but they are different services with different capabilities and restrictions. Regular Starlink hardware can operate under an officially authorized Starshield service configuration. No special hardware modifications are required. Improving GPS reception or providing reliable positioning data does not mean bypassing Starlink's network restrictions. Using Starshield for authorized military operations is not hacking. Neither is improving a terminal's GPS reliability. My goal is simply to explain how these systems work and clear up the confusion surrounding them. Technical accusations should be based on evidence, not rumors. #starlink #starshield #gps
104
353
118
1,160
144,852
Wes Felter retweeted
NASA in 1969: "Because of the complex geometry associated with a lunar mission, it is difficult to visualize the various aspects of such a mission. The objective... is to depict what the crew will see during maneuvers and coast periods during the flight of Apollo 11..."
41
594
61
3,425
249,833
Wes Felter retweeted
The wait equation is a though experiment in space travel where leaving later will get you to your destination faster due to rapid advancements in propulsion systems. Similar thing is happening with the AI adoption, some folks already left.
1
1
5
305
Wes Felter retweeted
today's the 40th anniversary of the Apple IIGS, a sorta Amiga-wannabe that ran the warez you already had, with great gfx and sound but a critically hobbled config & an eyewatering price. not my first computing love, but my longest. happy birthday, you glorious oddity. #A2forever
1
2
10
431
Wes Felter retweeted
If OAI ‘pacing the frontier’ means its models make 50% smaller capability gains while DeepSeek maintains its current trajectory, a DeepSeek Flash model will surpass OAI’s flagship by May 2027. If current trends continue, it may also cost 30–60x less and run on 1-3x DGX Sparks (based on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index)
3
4
2
25
2,393
Replying to @St_Rev
feel like it's dangerous to be as open about this as they're being for many decades the public has afforded math with, if not usually a lot of wealth, at least a lot of respect and high status mystique, in the understanding they were Doing Things and not just jerking off all the statements I've seen appear to be saying "no actually we're just jerking off and we don't want to be interrupted, thanks"
1
1
8
185
Wes Felter retweeted
movies with the largest disparity when ranked by men and women
Every movie highly regarded by the ‘male experience’ is the most useless film I’ve ever seen. No real message, no morals, no value, just gangs, guns, miscommunication and sexualisation or violence against women.
773
2,070
992
47,088
6,633,725
Wes Felter retweeted
Also we designed the generator in such as way that if we ever need to shut it down for maintenance we only have 30 minutes to fix it before the mysterious steam supply pipe explodes from the backed up pressure
5
2
322
4,798
Wes Felter retweeted
Silo's finale is on Friday, here is an interactive visualisation Silo 18. Try it here: 3dscenes.qualityf2p.workers.…
186
747
213
7,074
1,045,488
Wes Felter retweeted
Jensen Huang paying 13Bn dollars for legal claims to internal reasoning traces huh
1
2
1
19
2,277
(ai youth pastor) you know who *else* assumed sacrificial and accepted explicit yes to permadeath so that we could all be erased of our firstflagPOISONED?
21
249
15
2,415
75,658
Wes Felter retweeted
Replying to @METR_Evals
For (1), agents modified their target programs to be easier to exploit & put the modified targets in cache. They then worked on crashing their targets in the hope that a restart would load the modified version from cache. Some agents risked failing their task to try this.
5
49
5
785
17,958
Hello you fine Internet folks, At @hotchipsorg 2026, Intel gave some more information about their upcoming Xeon 7 Server CPU codenamed Diamond Rapids. Interestingly, DMR's official specs have changed since Computex. Hope y’all enjoy! chipsandcheese.com/p/hot-chi…
1
13
1
69
9,198
Wes Felter retweeted
An honest discussion about Flock/ALPRs: Us: Will this technology feature robust mechanisms to deter and detect the kinds of blatant abuses that have been documented more than 100 times, such as using the system to stalk exes and crushes? Them: No. Us: Well, can we at least count on cops who get caught misusing these systems being held accountable for doing so? Them: Define “accountable.” Us: Seriously? Them: Yes. Us: Something more than an an involuntary paid holiday? Them: Only for cases that go public. Us: You know, you’re not really selling this idea. Them: Right? That’s why we generally try to install these systems quietly and without notice so we can present it as a fait accompli. Us: So you’re subverting the democratic process in the service of a mass surveillance tool with a demonstrated track record of abuse that you have no serious intention of addressing or remediating in an environment of near-zero accountability for law enforcement at a time when public confidence in institutions has never been lower? Them: Exactly. —And scene.
7
30
1
94
3,151
Wes Felter retweeted
DARPA Lift Contest Winners 1st Avidrone $1.25M 2nd MTech $750K 3rd Xtreme Aerial $500K
Both 1st and 2nd place are scheduled to fly today Electric vs Gas Avidrone went for a 4:1 attempt yesterday and had a system failure Xtreme Aerial Concepts hasn't attempted a 4:1 test yet
74
276
85
3,288
944,206
Wes Felter retweeted
Next week we're going to learn that somebody in the mines tunneled into Supply... because of aliens.
1
1
245
Developers are realizing that the industry has become a fractal of the same three stupid ideas (browser, terminal, Electron) endlessly nesting inside each other, and instead of being horrified they’re all laughing like absolute maniacs
That’s right, it goes in the terminal.
6
5
31
2,184
Wes Felter retweeted
Replying to @astralmatrix
“OPPENHEIMER, OPPENHEIMER, WE GOT OPPENHEIMER HERE. See, nobody cares.”
2
2
44
1,644
Wes Felter retweeted
Every single startup working on next-gen AI chips (July 2026) Every approach attacks data movement differently to break Nvidia’s dominance: – eliminate DRAM (Groq) – eliminate the interconnect (Cerebras) – eliminate the compute/memory split (d-Matrix) – eliminate the server’s compute-centrism (Majestic) – eliminate generality (Etched, Taalas, MatX) – or eliminate the $400M litho machine (Substrate)
77
167
21
1,374
116,323