4 ms·
The first half is wrong too. GPS has nothing to do with satellites being able to see lots of things from high up. The whole thing is just nonsense that looks pl
by daveFNbuck 4y ago
The first half is wrong too. GPS has nothing to do with satellites being able to see lots of things from high up. The whole thing is just nonsense that looks plausibly like an explanation until you try to decipher it.
- crabmusket 4y agoI didn't even notice that bit (maybe GPT is a flat-earther?). Something GPT discourse has been demonstrating to me is that I'm not usually a very careful reader. I apparently skim a lot. Or maybe I skim GPT outputs because I'm biased in my expectations already?
- jakeinspace 4y agoI’ve noticed this too! It’s excellent at mimicking an expert voice, and it puts me off guard.
- ygggvbbjiuygvf 4y agoSo just like a typical explanation of things for five year olds?
- aw1621107 4y agoAchieving simplicity by glossing over details is distinct from achieving simplicity by stating something incorrect. Which one is more appropriate and/or typical will probably depend on what questions the five-year-old is asking, but I think it's reasonable to say the former is usually preferable to the latter.
- charcircuit 4y ago>GPS has nothing to do with satellites being able to see lots of things from high up. It does in a sense because the radio waves need an approximate line of sight to reach your GPS receiver. Being high up gives them a large coverage.