> In ensuing decades, high altitude electrical discharges were reported by aircraft pilots and discounted by meteorologists until the first direct visual evidence was documented in 1989.

From your link.

▲

N2yhWNXQN3k9 4 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

wfme 4 days ago | parent [-]

It was in response to your original, unedited comment: "Pretty well understood" or something to that effect.

My point is that discounting historical accounts with a link to current information is neither particularly useful nor interesting.

IMO it is much more interesting to understand how our understanding has changed over time.

▲

N2yhWNXQN3k9 4 days ago | parent [-]

The link also contains information of the history of the current understanding? And is a direct summary of current understanding? I guess that contains your constraints for an interesting article (as it includes historical and current references that cover said history). So, what am I missing?

Also, I didn't edit the main premise of the comment, as it still contains the phrase "Pretty well understood today", unedited, but whatever.

EDIT: I have now removed that phrase as my comment was flagged. I mean, "fuck off" to whoever did that. My original comment had "Pretty well understood today" with the wikpedia link.

Stupid shit, imo

Community here continually becomes less "don't be a dick" from 2009 and more "fuck you, toe the line"

	▲	philipallstar 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Community here continually becomes less "don't be a dick" from 2009 and more "fuck you, toe the line" No idea what this conversation is about in general, but these two statements you contrast here are identical. It's just with different values.