this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025

204 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

64937 readers

4044 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

204

FCC chair says we’re too dependent on GPS and wants to explore ‘alternatives’. (www.fcc.gov)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Uhhh nope, that's incorrect.

The way triangulation works is by essentially measuring distance.

So 1 satellite distance puts you anywhere in a radius (circle) of that satellite.

2 Satellites puts you at 1 of 2 locations where those radiuses intersect.

3 satellites gives you a single location.

That's why it's called triangulation. Tri = 3

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh boy, where do I even start? This comment is wrong in multiple ways. Let's break it down:

"The way triangulation works is by essentially measuring distance."
- Nope. This describes trilateration, not triangulation.
- Triangulation uses angles, while trilateration uses distances. GPS works via trilateration.
"1 satellite distance puts you anywhere in a radius (circle) of that satellite."
- Kind of, but missing a crucial detail:
  - A single satellite defines a sphere around itself (not just a circle—you exist in 3D space).
"2 Satellites puts you at 1 of 2 locations where those radiuses intersect."
- Wrong. Two satellite distance spheres intersect to form a circle, not just two points.
"3 satellites gives you a single location."
- Mostly right, but incomplete.
- In theory, three satellites narrow it down to two possible points, but one is often out in space or somewhere unrealistic, so it can often be ruled out.
- However, because your device lacks an atomic clock, it typically requires four satellites to synchronize time properly.
"That's why it's called triangulation. Tri = 3"
- Nope. GPS does NOT use triangulation.
- The "tri" in triangulation comes from angles, not the number of satellites. GPS uses trilateration, which is based on measuring distances, not angles.

Final Verdict

This comment is a trainwreck of incorrect terms and flawed explanations. If they meant "trilateration," at least part of it would make sense, but calling it "triangulation" completely ruins their credibility.

So, in short? No, their comment is very incorrect. 🚨

[+] [email protected] -10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

A single satellite defines a sphere around itself (not just a circle—you exist in 3D space).

You are not getting a 3 dimensional location. That's why GPS coordinates only exist on 2 planes. You don't know what you're talking about.

Final Verdict

You're not just wrong, you're wrong AND you're a dick about it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You are not getting a 3 dimensional location. That’s why GPS coordinates only exist on 2 planes. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Coordinates on a sphere is a 3 dimensional location. The earth isn't flat.

Edit: Please education yourself before you're so confident in your own bullshit answer. https://gisgeography.com/trilateration-triangulation-gps/ and https://www.gps.gov/multimedia/tutorials/trilateration/

Satellites broadcast a sphere, not a circle. And that sphere doesn't land on the earth as a perfect circle for relatively obvious reason... since the ground isn't perfect flat, nor is the earth perfectly spheroid.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The earth isn't flat.

So which coordinate accounts for elevation? Latitude or Longitude?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lat/Long is only valid if elevation is valid. You can't reference a lat/long that is miles into space... or beneath the crust of the earth.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's like you're making my point for me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A watch... or other simple gps device doesn't know what the elevation is.

Only one of the 2 selected points in a 3 satellite setup will be valid. And your device would have no idea which one is valid without elevation knowledge or a 4th satellite. Some devices can figure it out with just 3 satellites. Many/most won't. But ultimately it's the same thing. You need 4 pieces of input. Either 3 satellites AND elevation. Or 4 satellites.

So no. I've not made a point "for" you. You're just ignorant or specifically being obtuse on something you clearly don't understand.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A watch... or other simple gps device doesn't know what the elevation is.

My point, exactly

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Which is why they'd need 4 satellites. Read the whole post. Read the given sources. Stop being stupid.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I did read the whole post. Stop being an asshole.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Clearly you didn't... You keep asserting false statements that have already been disproven with sources.

But ultimately it’s the same thing. You need 4 pieces of input. Either 3 satellites AND elevation. Or 4 satellites.

If a watch doesn't "know" elevation (barometer or other sensor providing such information) as the fourth data point... Then it NEEDS 4 satellites to make the data points whole. Making your statements yet again wrong. I've covered the cases... but you keep pushing false statements like "gps is triangulation" (completely incorrect) or "GPS uses 3 satellites" which is also only correct in one very specific case... Where it's largely 4 or more, with reality being more like as many satellites as the device can read the pulses for. Often being a dozen or even more...

I am making accurate and complete statements. You are the one peddling misinformation.

Hell to prove the point... my time server grabs GPS as it's primary source. It grabs up to 12 satellites to sync time. It shows me my sync status for lat/long as well... At 3 satellites it CANNOT get a lock for location OR time. At 4 it gets a weak lock.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You keep asserting false statements that have already been disproven with sources.

I don't. You just aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. You keep arguing up a strawman.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

You are not getting a 3 dimensional location. That’s why GPS coordinates only exist on 2 planes. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Proven wrong, as it's a "2d" map that only exists on a 3d plane. It's a slice of space that represents the moving target of "ground level". The point that this is a problem to take it as just a "2d map" is that you can't take 3 point readings from on top of a 1000 ft cliff and 3 feet away at the bottom of a cliff and expect 3 point measurements to actually give you accurate measurements since it's just "2d" right? Elevation matters as it needs to be accounted for during the calculations.

So which coordinate accounts for elevation? Latitude or Longitude?

Where elevation = ground. As stated...

Then you assert.

It’s like you’re making my point for me.

Which was in response to a post stating that the watch would need a 4th satellite or "elevation" in order to get a valid GPS value.

And after I further clarified for you how it works... again... and that I was NOT making your point. I assumed you simply didn't understand the point I was actually making.

My point, exactly

No... It wasn't your point at all because you asserted that GPS is 3 point triangulation. When it's 4 point Trilateration which only has the option of 3 point when the fourth value of elevation is already known, which the vast majority of devices that use GPS don't know.

What have I straw-manned? Can you point to it? What part of GPS needs 4 nodes/data points is vague?