i have one question: why expend some much energy on unearthing obscure stuff that has relevance only to a very small subset of a very small industry and literally nobody else? seems like a waste of effort.
I don't understand why my girlfriend likes to watch Youtube videos of other girls doing their make-up and hair but, then again, she doesn't understand why I need all the computers that I have.
The author went to the effort simply because he himself found it interesting. He published it on a hunch that at least a few other people would find it as interesting as he did, even if they are not working in that industry, just because technology is interesting in its own right. He was right.
It looks as if you're treating it as a means to an end. I would say that it was more of an end in itself. Sure, something else might have been more impactful to a larger number of people, but having an impact isn't the point.
It also hints at how much money is actually in play with these "very small" companies. If they're spending hundreds of millions to get an edge (sometimes in picoseconds) on the competition, what does that say about the magnitude of the money they are working with and willing to risk?
this is a red herring. this specific article in no way discusses or addresses how this would happen, nor does it tie in relevance of shortwave to this specific point