Specifically - what am I wrong about? As-per HN guidelines specify exactly what I have said that is factually incorrect? Please quote it directly if you can, and in good faith provide sources so I can better inform myself.
I simply disagree that I'm wrong about anything that I've stated here - I have specifically visited a Long Lines AUTOVON switching site; 100% the US military was partnered with AT&T for this. I actually possess first-hand knowledge on this - I've met with site owners.
> I see you’ve added a new culpa, no worries! We all learn new stuff
OK? Honestly I was just trying to be polite and it was less of an apology and more taking the passive road out when we were obviously talking about two separate things. I don't disagree with anything that tyingq was saying - I was just trying to make a nuanced point regarding the partnership between AT&T and the US Military which is directly related to the article that was originally posted. Somewhere wires got crossed and I just decided to bow out as politely as I could.
Sometimes socializing on this site really weirds me out. Please, in good faith: what have I factually said that is incorrect here?
No prob!
Specifically this:
“To imply something is "similar" typically implies that it is separate to some degree”
So the US military has many microwave comm projects. ATT was only one of them that was left unused. Many had no ATT involvement whatsoever.
So yeah, military had contracts with ATT, but those were a tiny subset of microwave efforts.
I'm being misunderstood, I'm going try to to explain better.
I literally opened my original response to tyingq with "I'm not saying you're incorrect" as I did not want to invalidate anything they had written. I was not trying to argue a single point. I just found the grammar/set theory of "A similar thing happened in the US military" odd when that specific thing (the Long Lines microwave network) happened in the US military in a big way.
On your newly introduced point: "military had contracts with AT&T, but those were a tiny subset of microwave efforts". I do not describe the backbone of AUTOVON as a "tiny subset" of anything... The AT&T Long Lines was an engineering marvel. The achievement to reliably transmit coast to coast audio, video, and data through hundreds of redundant radio/switching sites was huge - that simply did not exist before. AT&T Long Lines is very significant to the history of microwave communications in the military specifically through AUTOVON.
I'm absolutely not arguing against the existence of military microwave tech independent of AT&T - I feel like this is obvious, but I also feel I have to state it outright after reading your comment.
Specifically - what am I wrong about? As-per HN guidelines specify exactly what I have said that is factually incorrect? Please quote it directly if you can, and in good faith provide sources so I can better inform myself.
I simply disagree that I'm wrong about anything that I've stated here - I have specifically visited a Long Lines AUTOVON switching site; 100% the US military was partnered with AT&T for this. I actually possess first-hand knowledge on this - I've met with site owners.
> I see you’ve added a new culpa, no worries! We all learn new stuff
OK? Honestly I was just trying to be polite and it was less of an apology and more taking the passive road out when we were obviously talking about two separate things. I don't disagree with anything that tyingq was saying - I was just trying to make a nuanced point regarding the partnership between AT&T and the US Military which is directly related to the article that was originally posted. Somewhere wires got crossed and I just decided to bow out as politely as I could.
Sometimes socializing on this site really weirds me out. Please, in good faith: what have I factually said that is incorrect here?