Cancer rates don't agree.

I'm pretty sure the average person ca figure out if their increased heart rate is due to excitement or stress at the time. Seems to me only a very small category of people would be unable to identify the difference.

If you want to track stress levels clinically, it would be easy to add an app to categorize the current level of stress interactively with the user.

Seems to me these guys are looking for something for reasons other than honesty.

You should hear the sounds of other submersibles. They're different, but not exactly confidence inspiring either

Even then, the x ms faster on day... is a calculated expectation, we can take that calculation and adjust for the entire year and the overall change in earths rotational speed is much much smaller. Individual variations are much higher and even then barely noticeable without excessive measurement that has almost zero value outside of intent to be overly precise.

It's like calculating pi to the millionth digit, it has effectively no meaning outside of the ability to calculate pi. Absolutely no engineering task is improved by calculating pi out to 2 million digits vs 1 million.

While GPS doesn't *use* it, it republishes it and there are dependencies created and filtered back into the system. surprised? Don't be.

But you're right, they don't specifically impact the GPS itself, which is why the story is FEAR MONGERING.

There's been on going debate about eliminating the adjustments provided by groups like this as it has zero impact on the vast majority of GPs users.

We aren't talking 90%, we're talking 99.999% of users are not impacted by this except in negative ways.

The extra leap seconds, +/- adjustment is barely relevant, and this group thinks ms matter over the long term.

This is fear monger ignorance.

The type of data potentially collected this way is, of course, interesting, but it's the type of information that tells us the earth rotated a tiny bit faster on July 22nd, 2025 UTC.

They haven't even fed that difference into the GPS. It might, possibly, make it into a future adjustment. The same adjustment they've been considering eliminating because it's pointless for the vast majority of use-cases. The value for that particular adjustment is so narrow the people generating the adjustment data are the only ones that use it.

An article like this, glossing over specifics, it's one thing when it's written to bring in an audience, but the failure to be specific (no, generically pointing at cellphones and wifi is not specific) makes the article useless for a discussion.

Somebody somewhere is looking to fund some research papers, instead they should find themselves out on their ass.

Inventor?!

Is there absolutely any evidence to back this technique up as successful? Injecting something hazardous to kill cancer isn't new; but you actually need real studies to see if it succeeds.

You aren't actually saying anything.

There's a premise, but it's described by a faulty assumption, everything thereafter is suspect, but since you feel it's important you think it's right.

American?

So the article is t about science, it's about feelings.

If your not willing to disappoint 34 people, why are you trying to disrupt millions?

Maybe start feeding the poor.
Killing less immigrants?
Maybe stop sending people to death camps.

Fucking Americans.

1:1000 queries need a citation in my life.

Honestly, it's probably closer to 1:10,000

The point of the search is to get answers.

How I get those answers is often secondary or completely utterly irrelevant.

I'm not constantly doing research papers, I don't need citations or evidence that would stand up in a court of law, I need a quick answer.

You're effectively saying that they didn't find fraud up front so even if there was fraud it's not the companies fault that perpetuated the fraud.

Now, I do agree the board of directors at HP needs to take some financial responsibility for it too; they were obviously rushing it through, but unless they were specifically a party to the fraud in question that responsibility is not equivalent.