3 ms·
Agreed. This reads more like a hit-piece than a good-faith effort to quantify the risks. They make long-tail pessimistic assumptions, explicitly ignore possib
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
Agreed. This reads more like a hit-piece than a good-faith effort to quantify the risks. They make long-tail pessimistic assumptions, explicitly ignore possible mitigating factors, and act as if this "worse than worst case" scenario is a reasonable description of the world we live in.
- hughes 11mo agoEven the title "Orbital House of Cards" is unnecessarily editorializing.
- schiffern 11mo ago>we introduce the Collision Realization And Substantial Harm (CRASH) Clock The needless forced backronym is another clue. It's Cargo Cult technical writing. Why did this need to be a (badly done) acronym at all? It's a countdown to a collision, a collision clock, but of course "crash" (in all caps no less) sounds worse, and science writing needs sciencey acronyms don't ya know...