What’s your evidence, Richard Easton??!?

  • zik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    This is mostly wrong: while she did invent what would later be called Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it isn’t used in modern WiFi or in GPS. It is used in Bluetooth though. It was an option in older WiFi for a while, but DSSS was also available at the same time and FHSS was never used much.

    • Toes♀@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You got me curious, is that true across all the different options for wifi such as 802.11b and a?

      • zik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Yes, it’s been obsoleted in wifi since 2014. DSSS was always the preferred option and FHSS was never used much in WiFi.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      upset at the comments like this calling out this post as “wrong” just because it doesn’t cover absolutely every historical nuance

      she invented FHSS. FHSS was used in early versions of WiFi. sounds an awful lot like she gave birth to a fucken central component to the development of wifi and yall just love to nitpick the achievements of women.

      • zik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It was hardly ever used in WiFi. Two modulation schemes were available in the original WiFi spec, FHSS and DSSS. DSSS was always preferred over FHSS and in practice FHSS was hardly used and eventually obsoleted a decade ago. It was never “the basis” of WiFi as claimed in the meme - that’s simply incorrect.

        Don’t get me wrong. FHSS is cool and it’s a great achievement. It just has basically no bearing on WiFi and absolutely no relationship to GPS.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          fair, rescinded.

          you did put a false quote in your top comment tho. thats my main issue: “invented bluetooth/wifi” was nowhere in the original post. that’s a straw position you constructed yourself then took down easily because obviously it’s not true.

  • FBJimmy@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Great to recognise this invention.

    I was surprised by the choice of ‘Mother of Wi-Fi’ though - Wi-Fi hasn’t used ‘frequency hopping’ as such since 802.11b was released back in 1999 - so very few people will have ever used frequency-hopping Wi-Fi.

    GPS only uses it in some extreme cases I think, but I’m not an expert.

    However, Bluetooth absolutely does depend on it to function in most situations, so ‘Mother of Bluetooth’ might have been more appropriate.

  • restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    There is a great documentary about her on Netflix. It covers her love of science and her attempts to get her design to the military for the war effort.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Okay, well, I’m a network professional with a specialty in wireless and a keen interest in historical wireless networking, and “non-standard” stuff is also quite interesting. I’m no Richard Easton.

    I want to start with a disclaimer, by no means would I, nor should I be interpreted to be saying or implying that any contribution, regardless of source, isn’t valuable. Whether it comes from a woman, or man, white, black, or any color in-between, non-binary, gay, bi, trans, whatever. The contributor is valuable and their contribution is always valued.

    That being said, FHSS, has its uses, and it’s been used in wireless. It’s a valid technology that should be recognised as such. As with many things, it wasn’t a singular effort, and nobody should imply otherwise.

    As others have pointed out, the most commonly known technology which employs FHSS is Bluetooth; and trust me, trying to track down issues caused by BT interference is a nightmare because of it. Generally I avoid the problem by not using the 2.4ghz ISM band as much as possible, but I digress.

    For those saying it’s not part of 802.11, it actually is. It’s an old part of the protocol which has long since been replaced and it is considered obsolete by the IEEE 802.11 group.

    However, in the 802.11 protocol, sometimes called 802.11 prime (Wikipedia calls it “legacy”), it states: “[802.11] specified two raw data rates of 1 and 2 megabits per second (Mbit/s) to be transmitted via infrared (IR) signals or by either frequency hopping or direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) in the Industrial Scientific Medical frequency band at 2.4 GHz.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11_(legacy_mode)

    All I want to really add, is that networking is a team sport. If companies and people didn’t work together to make it function, then it wouldn’t work.

    Only by collaborating and working together towards improvement and an increase in the ability of the technology to work across all platforms, vendors, manufacturers, and devices, can we get it to function at all. This fact is as true now as it was when FHSS was invented. Everyone needs to work together in order to make any real progress. Otherwise, all of our wifi stuff would “speak” different languages, and nothing outside of a single companies product line, would work with anything else.

    Everyone’s contributions have helped wifi get to it’s current state, and that should never be forgotten.

    • Wrightfi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I also work with Wi-Fi and am a CWNE, this post is spot on, thank you for writing this with such accuracy and clarity.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’ve been thinking of going for my cwna/cwne. I just haven’t taken the time to figure out how to go about it.

        Any pointers? Obviously I have a pretty solid foundation of knowledge, it’s just the whole getting it written thing that I’m most unsure of.

        Though, having a good resource for studying just to review, would be nice as well.

        • Wrightfi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          For CWNA, the study guide and practice tests are all that I would recommend to pass the exam. The guides contain really good information although I’m sure you’ll know a lot of it already. For the CWNP, CWSP and CWAP, I’d recommend the study guide and practice tests again, but with some online research for any topics you’re struggling with. The CWAP exam is quite tough so you’ll need to get hands on with packet captures. But in general I found most exams to be fair and related to the real world, no vendor specific nonsense or horrible trick questions.

          Once those are done the CWNE requires three short essays (less than 1000 words). And some other form of input, such as a white paper or blog, the CWNP website has this detailed but don’t worry too much about that now.

          For the CWNA, I’d start with the study guide and see how you take to it. I found it really useful throughout my career. Feel free to reach out in the future if you have any questions.

  • Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s an incredibly sensationalistic way to put it. By that logic, the ancient greeks are the forefathers of WiFi, because they figured how to create static electricity using cotton and ambar.

    You can (and should) give credit without overstating their achievement.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        It may be dropped, but it was used in the beginning

        Wouldn’t that not still make her the mother of Wifi?

          • olutukko@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            that’s not how it works. edit: others pointed it out already it seems. you would still call the inventor of a first car the father lf cars even though it has nothing to do with modern cars

            edit2: but considering that she didn’t really invent wifi, just frequency hopping, I would maybe call her grandmother or something

            • g_the_b@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              She didn’t invent frequency hopping, Nicola Tesla did. She invented a system that used a piano roll (from a player piano) to alternate frequencies. Also she shared the patent with another person.

            • h3ndrik@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah, I think I get it. I mean the analogy is a bit flawed. What she invented is that alike synchronizing the rolls of player pianos, you could build a mechanism that hops frequencies (instead of piano keys) to make remote controlling torpedos resilient against jamming.

              Idk. To me it feels like calling the inventor of three-wheeled vehicles the father/mother of cars, if we want to stay with that analogy. It’s remotely related, not an integral part and nowadays solved differently. But the first car was a tricycle. (Benz Patent-Motorwagen)

              But I don’t want to invalidate her achievements either…

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Just chiming in as a network tech that deals with these terms regularly.

        802.11, sometimes called 802.11 prime, to differentiate the first protocol from the 802.11 (WiFi) group. This protocol was not really every in widespread use. A few early niche cases, but it was quickly supplanted by 802.11a and 802.11b.

        The b standard was one of the first major WiFi versions to see adoption, which used DSSS, or direct sequence spread spectrum. Which fell by the wayside because OFDM was faster and more efficient, which led wifi speed increases from 802.11g, through wifi 4 (802.11n), WiFi 5 (802.11ac), and WiFi 6 (802.11ax). The more recent versions use QAM (wireless N+), which augments OFDM with amplitude modulation.

        Beyond QAM, speed improvements at this point are minimal and usually require wider channel widths to get any significant improvement, so 802.11 has focused on multiple access improvements and since 802.11ac, have been making improvements to MIMO. They started with SU-MIMO, then one-way MU-MIMO, then two way MU-MIMO.

        I haven’t read up on the changes in WiFi 7 yet beyond 6Ghz being added. I’ll look into it after it’s been fully ratified.

        Long story short, they moved to 5Ghz and eventually 6Ghz, because there isn’t enough channel width in 2.4 for WiFi 5, and 5ghz was getting a bit difficult to sustain for the speed they’re trying to hit, so 6Ghz is the next logical step.

      • h3ndrik@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        But that’s not part of 802.11n or 802.11g or “a” or what we call “Wifi”… 802.11 in itself is a pretty long standard, including all kinds of different things.

  • Margot Robbie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    It goes to show that being a good actress doesn’t mean that you can’t also be good at tech, even if you don’t like to to brag about it.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m from a Tech and Science background (unfinished Physics degree, most-definitelly-finished EE degree and then about 2 decades at the bleeding edge of Informatics) and some years ago came in contact with the Theatre Acting world for a couple of years whilst living in London (UK), doing various short courses, seeing fringe Theatre and getting acquainted with various (not famous) actors and directors.

      Most were surprisingly (for me, at the time, with my pre-made ideas from my Science background and 2 decades in Tech) intelligent people.

      Good acting using modern acting techniques and good directing do require quite a lot of brains to pull do well, IMHO, since in things like method acting well before there’s any acting of what’s on a script, there’s a whole process of analysing them and various techniques for discovering the emotions of the character (best I can describe in a short space), at least for stage acting.

      The only main difference in capabilities, I would say, is that at least in Acting there is a much higher proportion of Extroverts than Introverts, the very opposite of the proportion in Science and Tech, and Introverts are the ones with the personality type that’s detailed oriented and hence more likely to come up with things like new or changed processes for doing things (IMHO).

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Reminds me of that time someone got into a Twitter beef with Rage Against The Machine. They dropped the “it’s not like you have a degree in political science or anything” line. The lead guitarist went to Harvard for social sciences.

    • Icaria@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is one of the strangest sentences I’ve ever read, even with context. In the history of the human race, has anyone specifically accused good actresses of not being good with tech?

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        If I remember correctly at the time powers that be kept standing in the way of her presenting this tech to the military purely based on her gender

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        not every argument needs to be borne out of a counterargument. this is a mean comment in response to a genuine and meaningful analysis of human potential.