Can we have a policy here of not rewriting/making up titles? I'm not interested on personal takes before reaching the comments section.
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
2 points (53.6% liked)
World News
33089 readers
586 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
i kinda agree with /u/u_tamtam, it's standard practice to not change titles when posting articles to link aggregators, so most users (reasonably so) operate off of the assumption that the titles aren't altered, this gets esp confusing, when ppl change the headlines only slightly
imo it's good to have a clear line separating the article (with all its potential biases and misrepresentations) and opinions/commentary of the user, esp when lemmy allows link posts to have an attached text segment 🤷♀️
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'm not understanding the contradiction here. They're saying it was a spy balloon for spying but that it failed at its task. Not sure how true that is, no way for me to tell but there's no inherent paradox here.
What I understand from the context is that it was a spying device but they jammed the hell out of it while flying over the US then took it down.
That's my point. The original poster is trying to draw a line between statements that the balloon was a spying device and later statements that it did not collect intelligence while it transited over US territory as evidence that it wasn't a spying device and that the former of those statements is therefore inherently a lie. My take, without assessing the truthfulness of the claims, is that the linked articles do not support such a conclusion. One can claim the device was for spying and that it also didn't collect intelligence without contradiction because the claim is that it failed to collect intelligence, not that it did not intend to do so in the first place.
load more comments
(64 replies)
Taking a step back, people are completely missing how China’s weather systems are different from the rest of the world. Although China is a smaller country than Canada or the US, they have an extremely dense urban and factory core along their west coast. Weather forecasting in China is inherently a more complicated task because they need to consider not only meteorological effects but those from human activity. China also uses many techniques to monitor bans on emissions for large events (most notably, the Beijing Olympics) and it’s almost certain that they would prefer to use cheap balloons than expensive satellites for that task.
A Chinese weather balloon can have a hell of a lot more sensors than a Western one because they do actually need to track human activity for forecasting. Given the population density of China, you would also need a whole lot of balloons to loiter in the sky.
What’s more likely? That China has some advanced weather forecasting system, or that they decided that satellites are a bit too expensive nowadays and they’re better off using balloons visible from amateur binoculars for spying on their largest rival?
view more: next ›