gwarrr

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by gwarrr 2y ago

   If you'd elaborate on that I would probably try.
2. 2.▲
   by gwarrr 2y ago

   would be happy if someone would explain or differentiate "not exactly true"
3. 3.▲
   by gwarrr 2y ago

   You simply dumped me with the inane digital / analog hint. Like I missed that transition. Excuse me? YOU started to talk about analog photography, just to make me look like an idiot. Just saying it uses digital photography doesn't
4. 4.▲
   by gwarrr 2y ago

   you are talking about stills. still don't know what the actual tech difference is.
5. 5.▲
   by gwarrr 2y ago

   What is the point? Are we comparing coconuts and apples?
6. 6.▲
   by gwarrr 2y ago

   The paper is 12 years old. If there haven't been other methods to evaluate modern commercial tech, then it's an actual proof of tech evolving slowly due to radiation concerns. Even the process pointed out in the paper requires res
7. 7.▲
   by gwarrr 2y ago

   I am no expert, but to my knowledge the space flight tech evolves very slowly, if at all. One reason for that is that modern tech is supposedly too sensitive to radiation. So you want to balance what's worthwhile to upgrade, and fancy