←back to thread

395 points vinnyglennon | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
echoangle ◴[] No.43485519[source]
Don’t want to belittle the achievement but they launched it as in „had it launched by the commercial launch provider SpaceX“, not on a self-developed rocket as it sounds like on the first read.
replies(10): >>43486164 #>>43486176 #>>43486389 #>>43486503 #>>43487344 #>>43488249 #>>43488350 #>>43489132 #>>43490828 #>>43494066 #
parsimo2010 ◴[] No.43486503[source]
Very few organizations and even countries can develop both a launch vehicle and a satellite. Botswana has done fine to develop a satellite that integrates onto a rideshare launch. They aren't working with anything close to the headcount or budget of NASA or even the ESA.

Edit (rather than reply and make the comment chain long): It's fine that you read it that way. I figure that if the article were about a launch vehicle then it would have been the rocket's name in the title, and if the article were about the satellite then it would have the satellite's name (BOTSAT-1). If Botswana had developed both an orbital launch vehicle and their first satellite then I'd bet the headline would have been sensational.

replies(7): >>43486541 #>>43486619 #>>43486769 #>>43487047 #>>43487902 #>>43488229 #>>43490087 #
lolinder ◴[] No.43487902[source]
> Edit (rather than reply and make the comment chain long):

Sorry to go meta here, but this is just rude, both to OP and to other readers.

For OP, you're effectively pre-empting what they say with your own counterargument, and even more so you're removing the ability for them to counter your counter. You're essentially using the edit feature to end the conversation and ensure you have the final word.

For other readers, you're introducing confusing non-linear flow.

Just reply. It's not hard, and as you can see below you didn't actually prevent a subthread from forming.

replies(2): >>43488077 #>>43489362 #
pc86 ◴[] No.43488077[source]
> Sorry to go meta here, but this is just rude, both to OP and to other readers. ... You're essentially using the edit feature to end the conversation and ensure you have the final word.

I've noticed this more and more, especially on more controversial topics (which this is certainly not).

Adam makes a statement, Betty responds. Adam responds, and Betty edits her initial response and conversation ends, likely because Adam didn't see the edit.

replies(4): >>43488352 #>>43488663 #>>43490159 #>>43496282 #
Aeolun ◴[] No.43488352[source]
Isn’t that fine? Not all of those conversations have to be taken to the end.
replies(3): >>43488829 #>>43489218 #>>43489625 #
noduerme ◴[] No.43489218[source]
Imagine you're having an in-person conversation with someone in a crowded restaurant. Rather than addressing their next response to you, they wait until you go to the bathroom. Then they turn to everyone at the next table and say, "that guy doesn't get it, but fine."

I personally think that in a no-holds-barred debate, you don't bother trying to convince your interlocutor of anything. You focus on persuading everyone else in the room. But it's rude to treat every polite conversation as a smackdown debate. Such a strategy can also backfire by turning off your intended audience, as evidenced here.

replies(1): >>43490847 #
1. motorest ◴[] No.43490847[source]
> Imagine you're having an in-person conversation with someone in a crowded restaurant.

You're not in a crowded restaurant chatting with someone. You're in an online forum broadcasting messages to the vast nothingness.

replies(1): >>43491164 #
2. noduerme ◴[] No.43491164[source]
This isn't twitter. You're in a highly moderated forum in which both moderator and participants are bound by rule and custom to maintain civil behavior, in the best interest of everyone involved.

Even if you weren't, you should still act as if you were in a crowded restaurant. Without agreeing to conventions for how a conversation should be conducted, you can't have any productive conversation at all. So what would be the point? If you ever sense that you're in an online forum broadcasting messages to the vast nothingness then you are truly only wasting your own time. (Which is why this is the only site I ever post on). At that point, just stop, put it down, walk outside and engage in any kind of real interaction you can find.

replies(1): >>43491214 #
3. motorest ◴[] No.43491214[source]
> This isn't twitter. You're in a highly moderated forum in which both moderator and participants are bound by rule and custom to maintain civil behavior, in the best interest of everyone involved.

You're trying to make a storm in a teacup. OP literally edited his post to clearly state its fine if anyone interprete something differently. This is hardly outrage bait.

Try to direct your energy to something worth your time. Loudly complaining about vague subjective notions of netiquette in a moderated forum is certainly not it.

replies(1): >>43492254 #
4. lukan ◴[] No.43492254{3}[source]
"Try to direct your energy to something worth your time. Loudly complaining about vague subjective notions of netiquette in a moderated forum is certainly not it."

Maybe try not to tell other people what is important for them? That is part of the same debate, how we communicate and to me it also matters a lot.