Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Low Earth Orbit Visualization

platform.leolabs.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–195 of 195 posts

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#191

Post by Thorrez »

justshowpost wrote: post #171
Thorrez wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you enable location, Chrome will send some pieces of information about your computer to Google Location Services to get your GPS location. Then Chrome sends that GPS location to the site you're visiting. Using information from your profile wouldn't be accurate if you were e.g. at a coffee shop. >The information that Chrome sends to Google Location Services may include: >The Wi-Fi routers closest to you >Cell IDs…

This sounds like I work for Schutzstaffel but just doing paperwork for them

I put the "not on anything related to this" part in to clarify that although I'm speaking about Google and work at Google, I'm not really a firsthand source, I'm just providing thirdhand information.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#192

Post by jhugo »

netrus wrote: post #188
jhugo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Europe wouldn't be covered at all if it was coming from the phones, right? (GDPR) Which part of GDPR would prevent Google from collecting pairs of (Wi-Fi BSSID, approx lat/lon), with the consent that you gave when you set up your Android phone, and using it for their own purpose without giving it to any third party?

They give it to a third party - other chrome users. I was once in a train, and location services located me in a suburb hundreds of km away - clearly I was traveling with someone living there, using a portable/mobile hotspot. These kind of edge cases are hard to prevent (and rare), but still can lead to serious fines.

Your example doesn't demonstrate Google giving the data to other Chrome users. Making decisions based on the data is not the same as giving the data out.

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#194

Post by schiffern »

tshaddox wrote: post #160
schiffern wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s a comment about how full it is Why is that "scary," though? It's not like "running out of room" is a plausible risk. Kessler Syndrome limits you long before that. >Risk is not very high. It is managed adequately and the legislation is properly anticipating current developments See my edit to parent, and watch the video (especially the future simulations). The situation is far from "managed adequately" IMO. This…

> Why is that "scary," though? It's not like "running out of room" is a plausible risk. Kessler Syndrome limits you long before that. Seems like we’re going in circles here. Kessler syndrome is about collisions. But one can be concerned about the fullness of a medium without the risk of collisions being the primary concern. This is the case for everyday things like road traffic, restaurant lines, etc.

>Seems like we’re going in circles here.

That's what I said...

>This is the case for everyday things like road traffic, restaurant lines, etc.

Bad analogy. The "fullness" of space behaves in a way that's precisely unlike those 'common sense' scenarios.

Collisions are the limiting factor in this domain. If you're not considering collisions, you're not accurately capturing the idea of "fullness."

Re: Low Earth Orbit Visualization

#195

Post by schiffern »

tshaddox wrote: post #159
schiffern wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s a real time visualisation. There is no loss of fidelity in time. Unless you're going to spend multiple lifetimes watching it in "real time," there is unavoidable loss of fidelity here. I don't mean fidelity in rate-of-time, but in duration-of-time. The total time available limits the duration fidelity, just as our eyeballs and screens limit the size fidelity. Again it's less obvious (hence this confusion), but…

> Unless you're going to spend multiple lifetimes watching it in "real time," there is unavoidable loss of fidelity here. I don’t understand this argument at all. As stated previously, it’s a real time visualization, thus there is trivially no loss of fidelity in time. To claim that is like claiming that a live web cam of a city street has a loss in fidelity because it doesn’t show what the street will look like in 1…

Not fidelity in rate of time. Fidelity in total duration of time.

Just like humans have trouble imagining/seeing large spans of space (hence the necessity of size enlargement), humans also have trouble extrapolating to long spans of time (hence the necessity of using actual collisional evolution simulations, not "guesstimating" based on pictures or animations).

The size enlargement effect makes the "guesstimate" tend to overestimate, and the time duration compression effect makes it tend to underestimate. From the start the whole thing is fundamentally a bad method of "guesstimation," but for some reason people tend to quickly raise the former issue and completely overlook the latter.

Post reply on HN