4 ms·

I'm just raising the kind of precise, detail-oriented questions that typically emanate from this community. Your response relies on an appeal to emotion rather

by justsee 12y ago

I'm just raising the kind of precise, detail-oriented questions that typically emanate from this community. Your response relies on an appeal to emotion rather than logic, and doesn't seem particularly interested in engaging with the substance of the questions raised?

acqq 12y ago
The logic is: to get something at least approximately close to your goals done for the first time ever, you have to adjust your targets as you go. Every other strategy simply doesn't work. You are welcome to just stick to your initial goals in your endeavours. Write now absolutely exactly what you plan to do for the first time. Than please report in some time and stick to describing your failures. Observe how motivated for more you'll be. And to paraphrase Louis, since when the 25-years lasting mission that you've learnt it existed only recently owns you exactly seven days of function on the darn comet? To be more serious: of course the scientists will learn a lot even from every thing that went wrong. That's exactly how science works. It still doesn't mean that the public attention should concentrate on that now. See also my comment response to the "mistake" claim.
- johnchristopher 12y ago
  Of course you adjust your targets. But it doesn't imply you must rewrite your expectations to fit with reality after the facts as if those expectations never fluctuated. You actually lose data points by doing so.
  - acqq 12y ago
    Data points? The poster justsee actually complains about the FAQ page which didn't even have to be precise in the first place and doesn't have to be now. It's a web site directed to the uninformed public. Honestly, who do you expect to use the FAQ page for anything serious? Among other questions on that page are "Why is it so important to study comets?" "What is the difference between asteroids and comets?" You don't bother public with engineering stuff like "we have 1000 Wh power budget from the primary batteries, which will last depending on what happens when, and the different devices have different energy needs and we aren't actually sure what can happen but we prepare for as much as possible with the hope of at least something giving us some good results." They just switch off. We at least know where justsee switched off in being interested in the details: the expression "during a week" he understood as somebody promised him "exactly at least a week of entertaining news from the lander."
    - johnchristopher 12y ago
      > It's a web site directed to the uninformed public. The `uninformed public` deserves to be better considered, thank you. It's not about the quality of explanation or the depth of the technical details in the FAQ but about the way it gives the feeling facts are being rewritten to fit reality (if there are no mention on the page it is being edited to accommodate for mission updates then it's completely understandable people would frown over number shuffling). Did you count the words on that FAQ ? Any `uninformed` person who would read that FAQ would have questions about why the wording change over time. Because it's a FAQ, not a live update. > Honestly, who do you expect to use the FAQ page for anything serious? Really ?
      - skywhopper 12y ago
        The FAQ is rewritten as the facts change. They wanted a week, but the landing didn't go well, so they figured out they could get 2.5 days, and they changed the FAQ. It's not complicated. It's not a conspiracy. No one is being cheated.
        johnchristopher 12y ago
        Sigh... > [..] if there are no mention on the page it is being edited to accommodate for mission updates then it's completely understandable people would frown over number shuffling [..] Did I say I feel cheated ? No. Did I say there was a conspiracy ? No. The web page has all the qualities of a static web page (no `live update`, no `last modified` label, etc.) and it's on the ESA website which gives it some kind of an official vibe. Yet, they are updating it to reflect mission objective changes (which is totally fine as far as I am concerned, by the way) which lead to confusion and questions such as "Did they just changed their stated goals to accommodate for the fact Philae is going to operate for a short time than planned or expected ?". Add to that some Internet tweets about how "it smoothly perfectly gone well and all the data we wanted are there" and someone goes back to the FAQ and spot changes (1 week turn into 2.5 days). Allow me to take you for an idiot as well: It's not complicated. to understand that web page is a bit misleading. It doesn't relay the information that the mission parameters and objectives changed (and of course I know they changed, were likeley to, etc.). If you go back to that document in 20 years you'd have no idea there was some problems with the landing.
redacted 12y ago
> I'm just raising the kind of precise, detail-oriented questions that typically emanate from this community. This better get included in the next "fake HN frontpage" that gets posted :)
- acqq 12y ago
  And also that (I'm happy to say, an intentional joke) comment that I can't find now (please post the link here if you know it!) that explains that the communication of the lander and Rosetta is done with web technologies (web servers, htmls and stuff) and suggests that they aren't modern enough. (In reality, as discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611274 "Philae is controlled by 2 RTX2010 CPUs (hot red), further 8 control the Experiments. 13 CPUs (10* RTX2010, 1* ADSP-21020, 2* 80C3x) in total. © https://twitter.com/philae2014/status/427842417920712704 https://twitter.com/philae2014/status/427842417920712704 ")

by justsee 12y ago

acqq 12y ago

The logic is: to get something at least approximately close to your goals done for the first time ever, you have to adjust your targets as you go. Every other strategy simply doesn't work. You are welcome to just stick to your initial goals in your endeavours. Write now absolutely exactly what you plan to do for the first time. Than please report in some time and stick to describing your failures. Observe how motivated for more you'll be. And to paraphrase Louis, since when the 25-years lasting mission that you've learnt it existed only recently owns you exactly seven days of function on the darn comet? To be more serious: of course the scientists will learn a lot even from every thing that went wrong. That's exactly how science works. It still doesn't mean that the public attention should concentrate on that now. See also my comment response to the "mistake" claim.

johnchristopher 12y ago
Of course you adjust your targets. But it doesn't imply you must rewrite your expectations to fit with reality after the facts as if those expectations never fluctuated. You actually lose data points by doing so.
- acqq 12y ago
  Data points? The poster justsee actually complains about the FAQ page which didn't even have to be precise in the first place and doesn't have to be now. It's a web site directed to the uninformed public. Honestly, who do you expect to use the FAQ page for anything serious? Among other questions on that page are "Why is it so important to study comets?" "What is the difference between asteroids and comets?" You don't bother public with engineering stuff like "we have 1000 Wh power budget from the primary batteries, which will last depending on what happens when, and the different devices have different energy needs and we aren't actually sure what can happen but we prepare for as much as possible with the hope of at least something giving us some good results." They just switch off. We at least know where justsee switched off in being interested in the details: the expression "during a week" he understood as somebody promised him "exactly at least a week of entertaining news from the lander."
  - johnchristopher 12y ago
    > It's a web site directed to the uninformed public. The `uninformed public` deserves to be better considered, thank you. It's not about the quality of explanation or the depth of the technical details in the FAQ but about the way it gives the feeling facts are being rewritten to fit reality (if there are no mention on the page it is being edited to accommodate for mission updates then it's completely understandable people would frown over number shuffling). Did you count the words on that FAQ ? Any `uninformed` person who would read that FAQ would have questions about why the wording change over time. Because it's a FAQ, not a live update. > Honestly, who do you expect to use the FAQ page for anything serious? Really ?
    - skywhopper 12y ago
      The FAQ is rewritten as the facts change. They wanted a week, but the landing didn't go well, so they figured out they could get 2.5 days, and they changed the FAQ. It's not complicated. It's not a conspiracy. No one is being cheated.
      - johnchristopher 12y ago
        Sigh... > [..] if there are no mention on the page it is being edited to accommodate for mission updates then it's completely understandable people would frown over number shuffling [..] Did I say I feel cheated ? No. Did I say there was a conspiracy ? No. The web page has all the qualities of a static web page (no `live update`, no `last modified` label, etc.) and it's on the ESA website which gives it some kind of an official vibe. Yet, they are updating it to reflect mission objective changes (which is totally fine as far as I am concerned, by the way) which lead to confusion and questions such as "Did they just changed their stated goals to accommodate for the fact Philae is going to operate for a short time than planned or expected ?". Add to that some Internet tweets about how "it smoothly perfectly gone well and all the data we wanted are there" and someone goes back to the FAQ and spot changes (1 week turn into 2.5 days). Allow me to take you for an idiot as well: It's not complicated. to understand that web page is a bit misleading. It doesn't relay the information that the mission parameters and objectives changed (and of course I know they changed, were likeley to, etc.). If you go back to that document in 20 years you'd have no idea there was some problems with the landing.

redacted 12y ago

> I'm just raising the kind of precise, detail-oriented questions that typically emanate from this community. This better get included in the next "fake HN frontpage" that gets posted :)

acqq 12y ago
And also that (I'm happy to say, an intentional joke) comment that I can't find now (please post the link here if you know it!) that explains that the communication of the lander and Rosetta is done with web technologies (web servers, htmls and stuff) and suggests that they aren't modern enough. (In reality, as discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611274 "Philae is controlled by 2 RTX2010 CPUs (hot red), further 8 control the Experiments. 13 CPUs (10* RTX2010, 1* ADSP-21020, 2* 80C3x) in total. © https://twitter.com/philae2014/status/427842417920712704 https://twitter.com/philae2014/status/427842417920712704 ")