3 ms·
You're entitled to be as obstinate as you want to be, and as wrong as you want to be - I don't really care what you do. The fact is, sending information to a re
by leptons 3y ago
You're entitled to be as obstinate as you want to be, and as wrong as you want to be - I don't really care what you do. The fact is, sending information to a receiver that is receiving is in fact the definition of one-way communication, whether you want to refute it or not. You're dying on this hill.
- bmitc 3y agoI'm not dying on any hill or refuting anything. The point is the title is fine, could be mildly improved, though isn't outright incorrect, and that this entire conversation has been a waste of all of our time. Haha. If I'm talking to a person, and then they just start repeating a nonsense sound no matter what I say to them, is it really inaccurate to say communication has stopped, especially when it's immediately followed up with by saying communication has broken down and explained further? No, not really. Certainly isn't wrong enough to have this long, fruitless discussion that I feel embarassed I participated in.
- leptons 3y agoYou wrote: >Communication means an exchange of information. Receiving a signal does not. You were wrong. Communication does not explicitly require response. The definition of "communication": >"means of sending or receiving information, such as phone lines or computers." It says "Sending or receiving information". It does not say "sending and receiving". The spacecraft can be receiving perfectly fine, and that is communication from earth to the spacecraft. We may not be getting a valid response, but that does not mean we haven't communicated information to the spacecraft. This is the obtuse hill you chose to keep dying on.