4 ms·
> The engineer in me sees the complexity argument as insurmountable. The programmer in me dislikes complexity too, but if we apply your argument to cell phones
by xscott 2y ago
> The engineer in me sees the complexity argument as insurmountable.
The programmer in me dislikes complexity too, but if we apply your argument to cell phones vs land lines, we can see that simplicity doesn't always win.
- cjbgkagh 2y agoPresuming you mean infrastructure, land lines have the added complexity of all the property negotiations and intrenched interests that are often corrupt, often dysfunctional monopolies and sometimes both. Putting a device on a pole is relatively simple.
- Ekaros 2y agoLot of base stations start to be on buildings and those get same complexity. With downside that the building does not really gain anything as signal is going wrong way from them...
- fnordpiglet 2y agoOh except the building owner gain money. The usage rights for towers are generally leased. I’d note the ability to install one tower for a cell that covers a large region is a much simpler negotiation than rights to connect every building everywhere with wires.
- xscott 2y ago> Presuming you mean infrastructure Why would you presume that? The guy I replied to made an argument about ICEs being more complex than electric motors. And fwiw, it looks like that post has been edited a ton. I was replying to a relatively simple (and questionable) statement.
- sameoldtune 2y agoApples and oranges. If in 1980 we kept our phones with us and expected a cable connection even while driving or in the middle of a field, we would think cell phones were a much less complicated solution.
- eslaught 2y agoBecause the usage modes are entirely different? If you could only drive electric-based cars around your own neighborhood, the usage modes would also be entirely different and they never would have taken off either. (As, case in point, did effectively happen in the era of electric golf carts. It wasn't until they got real cars with real car range that things were comparable enough to challenge the status quo.)
- fnordpiglet 2y agopoint point global bipartite graph connectivity with switching is incredibly more complex than RF cells. The last mile is where the complexity in telephones lie. It’s not in the complexity of the (again) science it’s the number of moving parts. Stringing wires between everything everywhere that can never be broken is much more complex than concentrating the wiring to backhaul lines at towers and devices connecting to the tower and negotiating over a cellular switching protocol. By using connectionless RF for the last mile you’ve dramatically reduced the aggregate machine complexity by orders of magnitude and improved the capabilities (truly untethered) dramatically.
- dzhiurgis 2y agoIn some weird way rockets are simpler than cars and planes ergo Starlink is simpler than cell networks while providing totally global connectivity.
- fnordpiglet 2y agoThat’s why I’m looking forward to the rocket to mars I was promised !
- fasa99 2y agoJust to serve as a translator for this guy who aren't acronym enthusiasts throwing around high-falutin' words such as "bipartite graph" ICE = "Internal Combustion Engine" RF = "radiofrequency" Dude said: (1) engines are more complex than battries. So that means battrie cars will do really well on the long term, being simpler and all. The complexity makes engines (also known as "frozen water") more expensive to make, less reliable, and more tedious in general. (2) stringing a bunch of wires is complicated, and you ain't got to mess with that noise with a cell phone because it don't need no wire and is therefore simpler
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]