Tlaloc_Temporal

Yes, there were, and for the most part YT promoted those dislikes the same as likes. I think they still do. The dislikes they actually removed were the visible ones, the ones people could use to steer clear of ads and scams.

On one hand, synthetic methane is set to be rather important in the medium term future. On the other hand, bio methane is probably the worse greenhouse product at the moment.

That’s why a lot of us are here after all.

That’s true to a point. 50% gas by fill level is ridiculous though.

I’ve come across several sites with abhorrently short password limits, as low as 12.

Worse, 2 of them accepted the longer password, but only saves the first n characters, so you can’t log in even with the correct password, untill you figure out the exact max length and truncate it manually.

Even worse, one of those sites was a school authentication site, but it accepted the full password online and only truncated the password on the work computer login. That took me an entire period to suss out.

Except youtube, because dislikes were only used to call out scams and ads. The ad people got mad and now misinformation is easier to spread.

Ehh, the fragmented nature helps prevent systemic abuses that encourage that redditoid behavior, and also encourages instance hopping more regularly than once a decade.

Dumping that reddit behavior should be a lot easier now.

The one with the plus at the bottom is female, the one with the arrow at an upwards angle is male.

I don’t understand the meme. The figure is from a paper about false positive readings in MRIs, using a dead salmon supposedly thinking, and the meme is suggesting… the fish was alive?

Not much context + vague point = poor excuse for a meme.

Add the context that this is a dead salmon, then claim that salmon are immortal of something, idk.

I honestly like this usage better. It matches verbal useage (fourty dollars), and also matches other units (40kg, 40kph, 40cm, and so on).

Those are good references. Very thorough.

If you can get a copy of the ROM, or have access to a real calculator, you can get an emulator rubning actual software for free.

Damn, why ya gotta do me like this?

Voyager is never coming down. Even if we wanted to bring it back, we couldn’t in this century, maybe ever.

Eventually it’s slagged remains will find a black hole to rest in, which is a different down at best, but even the black holes will evaporate, assuming the universe lasts that long. This fate is so far beyond the concept of down that there must be nuance in the claim, especially when talking about astrophysics.

Every interplanetary craft defies the phrase, and even orbit demands a deeper understanding. “What goes up must come down” sounds good and covers everyday life, but just like Newtonian physics it breaks down at large scales.

Something axiomatically correct would always be true (for the axioms we have taken). Perhaps you could take “On Earth” as an axiom here, but that’s a very restrictive axiom that you need to specify. Thus a more nuanced take: “What goes up must come down, unless it leaves the atmosphere.”

Not that I’m using axioms very rigorously. They’re usually used for math things. My informal usage was to evoke the sense of absolute truth. Of a statement so obvious that it doesn’t need proof. I find Tyson speaks in terms of “this is” rather than “this suggests” or “we have evidence for”. He speaks like an omniscient narrator speaking a story rather than a communicator of science.

Also, ‘Falsity’ is a word, and I think you’re actually using it correctly; it’s the opposite of ‘Veracity’ and also a noun for a lie or untruth. “The falsity of the statement” seems right, but it’s also old and very underused. I think a better word would be ‘Falseness’, but ‘Falsity’ in neat!

When I say axiomatically correct, I mean something self-evident or aligned with fundamental principles. An example of something that’s axiomatically correct would be: “Gravity makes things fall down” or “Lines that aren’t parallel will eventually cross”.

Something that sounds axiomatically correct, but isn’t, would be “What goes up must come down”. It sounds true, and was practically true for thousands of years, but every spacecraft relies on it being false, that things can stay up forever.

I don’t have an example from NGT off the top of my head, but this sentiment is why I’m not a fan of his, despite being very into space and astrophysics.

I don’t think it matters how big the thing biting you is, just how likely it is to rip bits off.

A weasel has nearly 4 times the Bite Force Quotient of a Moon Bear, but I’d take many Weasel bites before a single Moon Bear bite.

That would make them scisexual or politisociosexual I guess.

I don’t know, even on his own podcast I found him more willing to sound right than be right. Not that he was wrong, just dropping nuance and exceptions for the sake of sounding absolute and axiomatically correct.

His words end up being easy to poke holes in if and only if you know what he’s talking about. Thus I find it hard to accept what he says when I don’t know what he’s talking about.

Paper castles look good, but a short stone wall has a better reputation.

It’s more appealing than the Did Not Finish command. That’s to thematically close to flaming crashes for my liking.

Ironic, considering those ad segments are the only original content…