4 ms·
The storm was the only cause, so it is in fact “of”.
by coffeeblack 5y ago
The storm was the only cause, so it is in fact “of”.
- skywal_l 5y agoThe storm is a single event in a chain of events that caused the satellites to fail. It's not the direct nor the first cause.
- imdsm 5y agoI'd probably use the term 'following' in that case. Starlink lost 40 satellites following geomagnetic storm
- HPsquared 5y agoThere is a causal link though: without the storm, the satellites wouldn't have been lost (in this way at least).
- dkbrk 5y agoThat's like saying a ship sank not because of the hurricane, but because it was flooded and ended up capsizing. Sure, it wouldn't have sunk if it had stayed in port, but we still say the hurricane was the cause.
- skywal_l 5y agoI assume you are making a case in good faith. Saying the satellites were lost because of the geomagnetic storm could imply that the satellites suffered some sort of electronic damage. Which, as I understand, is not what happened. That is why the nuance here is important. In your case, there is no other reason for the boat to be lost but because of the wind and waves.
- ascar 5y agoSo the difference is that the movement of water (i.e. waves) is implied in a Hurricane and that the atmosphere is expanding isn't implied in a geomagnetic storm? So your whole argument is based on our (meaning the general population) limited knowledge about the side effects of geomagnetic storms, while we do know about the side effects of hurricanes. The nuance isn't that important. The implication that a geomagnetic storm can only cause magnetic/electric damage is just wrong. It's like implying a hurricane can only cause damage through wind and rain.
- saint-loup 5y agoUseful terms and distinction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causati...