cole

fair, my apologies, thought you were the original commentator

Alright, this doesn't support your argument. That is a counter example that SpaceX ISN'T receiving subsidies. Anything else? I do appreciate the discourse though

It seems Starlink A) isn't getting subsidies and SpaceX is B) providing services in exchange for payment rather than just getting free money.

On top of this, SpaceX is reportedly still profitable. I just don't understand your argument here. No sources, no actual hard data just conjecture.

The problem is you say this with certainty but have no numbers or evidence to back it up. How do you know the revenue from subscribers can't cover rocket launches?

can I get a source on the math for this? I haven't heard that before

SpaceX is doing just fine

but you don't pay attention to the actual impacts the companies have. SpaceX gets bashed a lot which is hilarious. There is no argument that SpaceX is bad. Like what, ULA was better? Throwing boosters in the ocean and charging $500 million+ per flight? SpaceX is objectively an amazing achievement that we should all be proud of.

this assumption is only correct if EVERYBODY is using as blockers. They aren't - so it makes sense to cut off the proverbial leeches

lmfao my thoughts too. This is so easy just mention you'd like to try it

But that wasn't the point your were making. You were saying that the data has value in relation to your point, not the exposure. The implication you were making was that Google could still profit off the data

Sure, but I think you were being intentionally misleading by disputing that Google isn't making money off of you if block ads, despite the fact that that person was correct.