• glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        There is nothing TO understand. It’s “this thing happened. Here’s two statements of what that might mean”

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          There’s plenty to understand. Synthetic apertures allow getting a far higher resolution than you could otherwise which mean that you can place satellites in higher orbit to get the same coverage you’d get with more satellites in a lower orbit. This is what the article says, but you clearly have no clue regrading the subject and just need to argue for the sake of arguing. Go touch some grass.

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            The article is 6 sentences long and 2 of the sentences are speculation from the author.

            This is not a good article.

          • strongarm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            The OP hasn’t argued anything except the quality of the article, your reaction is quite absurd and detracts from what would be an interesting topic.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 hours ago

              The OP made a vapid comment that adds nothing to the discussion. Had OP actually made a contribution discussing the veracity of the article one way or the other that would be an interesting discussion. The article doesn’t go into details of how this technology works, but simply throwing shade at it shows that OP isn’t actually interested in the subject in the slightest.