alt Hacker News> We had interference somehow. Our remotes were set up to operate at the same frequency. Each remote controlled both devices.
That's not "interference" in the technical sense.
Interference actually causes signal degradation, distortion, or loss.
This is the system "working as expected" technically. It was just set up wrong.
Replies
MawKKe • yesterday at 9:57 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-channel_interference
One could argue that "interference" is not entirely a objective technical definition, but also subjective w.r.t quality of the service expected.
Also, in this scenario, if the two remotes were to transmit simultaneously, it is possible both boxes could have received some mangled, unregonizable waveform due to the interference.
> That's not "interference" in the technical sense.
But it is "interference" in the sense that that is what the word "interfere" means.