←back to thread

119 points cratermoon | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
benchmarkist ◴[] No.42198125[source]
As long as it is militarily and commercially viable then the number of satellites will continue increasing, regardless of what academics have to say about collision rates. As per usual this is a coordination problem and in case people have not noticed nations are becoming less coordinated and more insular.
replies(1): >>42198732 #
akira2501 ◴[] No.42198732[source]
> in case people have not noticed nations are becoming less coordinated and more insular.

And what is your yardstick for measuring this? As far as I can tell this is the opposite of true. It's a popular national news meme but I don't believe it's been measured in any reliable way.

replies(3): >>42198890 #>>42199194 #>>42201389 #
benchmarkist[dead post] ◴[] No.42199194[source]
[flagged]
Dylan16807 ◴[] No.42199896{3}[source]
"True" here is not a boolean, it's the truth of the matter.

The claim is that coordination is decreasing. Calling that "false" might mean coordination is steady. Calling it the "opposite of true" means that coordination is increasing.

replies(1): >>42199986 #
benchmarkist ◴[] No.42199986{4}[source]
That's a possible interpretation but the verbosity of the original statement hinders understanding the actual intent which is I why I recommended simplifying and removing unnecessary redundancies.
replies(1): >>42200076 #
Dylan16807 ◴[] No.42200076{5}[source]
It's 40 words and makes three separate points in those words. I don't think it's too verbose, and I don't think your suggestion helps.
replies(1): >>42200088 #
1. benchmarkist ◴[] No.42200088{6}[source]
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.