Re:How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astrono...
by dx87 on Thursday August 27, 2020 @08:22AM
(#24292914)
You didn't say it's small, you said it's "trivial". This isn't about people taking pretty pictures, this is about people trying to do actual work. It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 100% if it still ruins what they're working on. So yes, you're being arrogant by saying that just because it's a "trivial" amount that's ruined, when you don't understand what they're doing.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astrono...
by 0-_-0 on Thursday August 27, 2020 @08:29AM
(#24292972)
2% is trivial. They lost 2% of information (as someone pointed out this might be closer to 20%). This means the cost to the astronomer was 2% (or 20%). Calling this "ruining" is an exaggeration. Of course it would ruin a pretty picture, but "This isn't about people taking pretty pictures, this is about people trying to do actual work." where you can choose the part of information you take into account.