If the question is about satellite vs ground instrument: the geographic coverage from the satellite is much greater. Geostationary instruments over Europe cover the Atlantic Ocean, Europe, Africa, the Middle East.
If that was not the question, can you provide more detail?
Thanks, this is indeed the question. Thinking out loud: the coverage is probably somewhat conic therefore if you want to scan the ground or lower atmosphere an high altitude is optimal, while scanning the upper atmosphere could be done from the ground.
Perhaps earth's spherical shape gives an advantage to the satellites in both cases ?
Maybe, though a GEO satellite (or really any satellite) will always be much much farther from even the upper atmosphere than the ground will be, so satellites have a pretty dominant coverage advantage.
This is great aspect of it, but that doesn’t diminish that it feels so tedious to work with compared to Julia and Matlab. Some of that is just from trying to shoehorn Python as a scientific computing language, but I think it’s time to revisit whether Python should have first party support for vectorization, arrays in memory, and broadcasting as Julia and Matlab have.
I've never understood the "so tedious" argument of Python vs Matlab. Sure, having to import numpy and use np.array to create numpy arrays is a bit typing, but other than that I don't see major differences.
Given what inconsistent mess Matlab is aside from matrix manipulation, I take NumPy any day.
Where are these people who use Matlab properly? All I ever see in other people’s Matlab code is for loops. Their idea of speeding up their code is using parfor.
Obligatory licensing rant: you have to pay extra to use parfor, as I found out one day when the license server at work told me I couldn’t run somebody else’s code because we were out of licenses for that iteration construct. This is just Mathworks taking advantage of ignorant people who don’t understand what Matlab is to inflict more misery with their insane licensing scheme. It’s not just that it’s expensive, it’s that it’s weirdly unpredictable. I mean, come on, the code was slow and chock full of errors as it was. To have it randomly fail because the license server was out of parallel toolbox licenses is just insulting.
A file-based password manager ils something you have (the file) and something you know (the master password) provided you have a timeout on the password manager and a safe screensaver. (In reply to some comments below).
It does require some thought / hygiene but seems a fair compromise.
The author of the article, Philip Ball, wrote an excellent book on order almost 20 years ago: Critical Mass https://philipball.co.uk/critical-mass-how-one-thing-leads-t...
He also wrote many other interesting books but "Critical Mass" really reviews a lot concerning emerging phenomena in complex systems from the point of view of a condensed matter physicist.
As tmux is discussed: my setup is xterm + tmux with 'C-o' as the key binding. Conflicts with nothing I use and allows me to start screen while in tmux (don't ask :-O but sometimes tmux is local and I want a remote screen). The binding is also ok whether you use vi or emacs. What else could you want?
The macs I support in my private circle run very well without an antivirus. It is anecdata of course but about 15 years of it for several "lambda" users.
Besides the technical part, Fortran's community has evolved a lot as well since 5-10 years. See the community paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.15110
"The state of Fortran" (not an author myself)
If that was not the question, can you provide more detail?