4 ms·

A bit, it's 5 orders of magnitude over the required SNR?! From the article: "The authors estimate a lower limit of 93 Jy per beam in the frequency averaged imag

A bit, it's 5 orders of magnitude over the required SNR?! From the article: "The authors estimate a lower limit of 93 Jy per beam in the frequency averaged images containing Starlink emission. Considering just 1 mJy of radio frequency interference could mess up an EoR power spectrum integration, this could severely affect SKA-Low EoR science."

jillesvangurp 1y ago
> the required SNR Require by who and on what authority? My point here was not to contest that but make the point that the cat is out of the bag and that it is indeed impacting SKA-Low EoR science and the people involved with that have to deal with that. Getting the cat a little bit back in the bag via policy and other means is maybe worth trying (good luck) but I don't give it a very high chance of success.
- 1dom 1y ago
  This makes me want to say "is nothing sacred?!" I get your point from a pragmatic: this is the world we live in, work with it, not against it. I think you need to scope this approach when suggesting it though, since it's effectively "a policy has been broken by a company, but we can't undo it, so lets just accept it and let them get on with it" which doesn't seem like it'll lead to a better world. I do agree with your point that the people who suffer from the policy breach have to be pragmatic in their handling. But ultimately, let's not let pragmatism and stoicism lead to businesses spectacularly breaking policies in hopes of being told "well the cats out the bag now, the victims can deal with it, you might has well continue".
  - rickdeckard 1y ago
    > I do agree with your point that the people who suffer from the policy breach have to be pragmatic in their handling. But ultimately, let's not let pragmatism and stoicism lead to businesses spectacularly breaking policies in hopes of being told "well the cats out the bag now, the victims can deal with it, you might has well continue". I fully agree, and that's IMO the core-issue here: This strong-arm approach of just forcing the problem to be solved in your favor by scaling as fast as possible and then pleading how uneconomic it would be for you to change course, insisting that the other side should be pragmatic about this. I don't remember this was a working strategy in the past (imagine a car-company just accelerating sales of a faulty car to scale THEIR issue and avoid having to do a recall), but nowadays it could even be turned into a geopolitical topic...
    - lazide 1y ago
      It’s the definition of ‘too big to fail’, and it’s been a viable and effective strategy… for ever? Near as I can tell. He’ll, the Fed even got created because of the time the whole US economy cratered in the early 20th century and one man was the one whole bailed out the whole country.
      - rickdeckard 1y ago
        'Too big to fail' is only said about companies that didn't collapse yet though. But such companies also failed already. Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom comes to mind. Even Blockbuster could be on that list...
        lazide 1y ago
        The take away is they weren’t big enough to have enough leverage eh?
        rickdeckard 1y ago
        > The take away is they weren’t big enough to have enough leverage eh? This reasoning has some parallels to "everything that can't be explained by science must be god". It stays valid even when proven wrong...
        lazide 1y ago
        Eh, if they died and everything didn’t actually break in a terrible unsolvable way, then…. It’s essentially a form of market extortion though, so perception of ‘survivable’ matters as much as actually survivable eh?
    - 1dom 1y ago
      I instinctively want to agree with you here and bemoan the state and directions of the world. But if I really think about it, it's been happening my entire life. I'm mid 30's now. I assume someone older than me would have had the same experience of it happening their entire life. You're right though, it's crappy and merits a lot of geopolitical reflection. But I suspect it goes back millenia and is a manifestation of basic evolutionary biology with the business world, rather than anything that can be solved/fixed. And we've gone full circle about the balance of working for/against humanity in the name of progress.
- uv-depression 1y ago
  > the cat is out of the bag Someone, if we stretch that metaphor, intentionally opened the bag for profit. We can and should hold them accountable. > the people involved with that have to deal with that Yep, and they should hold the people who caused this accountable. > is maybe worth trying (good luck) but I don't give it a very high chance of success You may be correct that it has a low chance of success. However, people who think like you are exactly the cause. People who value Musk's net worth more than science, people who fetishise "progress at all costs," regardless of whether or not the progress actually helps people or is what makes sense (municipal internet, folks!). Understanding physics is also critically important progress, but it doesn't make money next quarter so you don't care. So you'll forgive me if I don't take your advice on the situation.

jillesvangurp 1y ago

> the required SNR Require by who and on what authority? My point here was not to contest that but make the point that the cat is out of the bag and that it is indeed impacting SKA-Low EoR science and the people involved with that have to deal with that. Getting the cat a little bit back in the bag via policy and other means is maybe worth trying (good luck) but I don't give it a very high chance of success.

1dom 1y ago
This makes me want to say "is nothing sacred?!" I get your point from a pragmatic: this is the world we live in, work with it, not against it. I think you need to scope this approach when suggesting it though, since it's effectively "a policy has been broken by a company, but we can't undo it, so lets just accept it and let them get on with it" which doesn't seem like it'll lead to a better world. I do agree with your point that the people who suffer from the policy breach have to be pragmatic in their handling. But ultimately, let's not let pragmatism and stoicism lead to businesses spectacularly breaking policies in hopes of being told "well the cats out the bag now, the victims can deal with it, you might has well continue".
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  > I do agree with your point that the people who suffer from the policy breach have to be pragmatic in their handling. But ultimately, let's not let pragmatism and stoicism lead to businesses spectacularly breaking policies in hopes of being told "well the cats out the bag now, the victims can deal with it, you might has well continue". I fully agree, and that's IMO the core-issue here: This strong-arm approach of just forcing the problem to be solved in your favor by scaling as fast as possible and then pleading how uneconomic it would be for you to change course, insisting that the other side should be pragmatic about this. I don't remember this was a working strategy in the past (imagine a car-company just accelerating sales of a faulty car to scale THEIR issue and avoid having to do a recall), but nowadays it could even be turned into a geopolitical topic...
  - lazide 1y ago
    It’s the definition of ‘too big to fail’, and it’s been a viable and effective strategy… for ever? Near as I can tell. He’ll, the Fed even got created because of the time the whole US economy cratered in the early 20th century and one man was the one whole bailed out the whole country.
    - rickdeckard 1y ago
      'Too big to fail' is only said about companies that didn't collapse yet though. But such companies also failed already. Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom comes to mind. Even Blockbuster could be on that list...
      - lazide 1y ago
        The take away is they weren’t big enough to have enough leverage eh?
        rickdeckard 1y ago
        > The take away is they weren’t big enough to have enough leverage eh? This reasoning has some parallels to "everything that can't be explained by science must be god". It stays valid even when proven wrong...
        lazide 1y ago
        Eh, if they died and everything didn’t actually break in a terrible unsolvable way, then…. It’s essentially a form of market extortion though, so perception of ‘survivable’ matters as much as actually survivable eh?
  - 1dom 1y ago
    I instinctively want to agree with you here and bemoan the state and directions of the world. But if I really think about it, it's been happening my entire life. I'm mid 30's now. I assume someone older than me would have had the same experience of it happening their entire life. You're right though, it's crappy and merits a lot of geopolitical reflection. But I suspect it goes back millenia and is a manifestation of basic evolutionary biology with the business world, rather than anything that can be solved/fixed. And we've gone full circle about the balance of working for/against humanity in the name of progress.
uv-depression 1y ago
> the cat is out of the bag Someone, if we stretch that metaphor, intentionally opened the bag for profit. We can and should hold them accountable. > the people involved with that have to deal with that Yep, and they should hold the people who caused this accountable. > is maybe worth trying (good luck) but I don't give it a very high chance of success You may be correct that it has a low chance of success. However, people who think like you are exactly the cause. People who value Musk's net worth more than science, people who fetishise "progress at all costs," regardless of whether or not the progress actually helps people or is what makes sense (municipal internet, folks!). Understanding physics is also critically important progress, but it doesn't make money next quarter so you don't care. So you'll forgive me if I don't take your advice on the situation.