15 ms·
I did mention this later in the thread - was just a fun experiment to see if locating it was possible if we didn't know
by johnmcelhone 4y ago
I did mention this later in the thread - was just a fun experiment to see if locating it was possible if we didn't know
- Sporktacular 4y agoSure, but the reason you didn't lead with that, and also the reason you did this for a secretive aircraft and not a new campervan is clicks, no?
- yalogin 4y agoTo be fair, a secretive aircraft would trigger thoughts about security in a hacker's mind. A camper van does not trigger any such thoughts. It may not be just clicks, with a camper van the whole thread might not even exist. I am not the original poster, so this is just my thought
- stuff4ben 4y agoEven if he did do this for the clicks, so what?
- Sporktacular 4y agoSo it's manipulative. Like a sensational headline that buries the mundanity at the end. Lead with "this is already publicly known" so people can make an informed choice about where to direct their attention.
- burntwater 4y agoIf the point of the article/twitter thread was to reveal the location of the hanger, as if that was previously a secret, then yes perhaps the title is misleading. But that's not the point of the article. The point of the article was to reveal the location of the hanger using the stars and other metadata, and to explain how that was done. The journey was the story, not the destination.
- Sporktacular 4y ago"as if that was previously a secret" And that's where the disagreement is. It implied a secret by the nature of the object, enough so that the fact it wasn't needed to be clarified - but at the end. You only publicly reveal something once, and this already had been. But then, those aren't his words and it's implicit so this is a grey area and not a huge deal. But I still think leaving the clarification to the end was deliberate.