[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

It’s way closer to burning up (like, it’ll do it soon and uncontrollably without intervention) than a typical graveyard orbit. And if (when) it started breaking up in a poorly-chosen museum orbit, things would get very messy very fast.

I say send up a lil robot buddy that can hover around and 3D scan the interior for a few months and let anyone with a VR headset go hang out when they want to answer emails or whatever.

[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 12 points 2 days ago

And also that Lukashenko was widely known for preferring a more reasonable policy toward Ukraine, and he was set to inherit the presidency upon Putin’s death, and that Putin was like right about to die because he became the leader of Russia like 68 years ago

[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago

clearing the launch tower during a test launch with an experimental rocket that has no payload and no humans aboard is success

managing to get into the right orbit without aborting using a rocket that’s launched since the 60s and is lit with giant matchsticks is success

You, an idiot: “these are comparable”

[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 48 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

“both sides are the same”

account created less than two weeks ago

Lmao get fucked

64
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by becausechemistry@lemm.ee to c/askscience@lemmy.world

Famously, Oppenheimer and co worked out how close a nuclear bomb test would be to causing a chain reaction of nitrogen fusion in the atmosphere. They made a lot of worst-case-scenario assumptions and still came to the conclusion that no, a nuclear bomb test wouldn’t scour the surface of the world.

But let’s say the atmosphere was twice as dense as it is. Or ten times as dense. At what point would that calculation turn very, very scary?

Obligatory xkcd

Edit: man, seriously, most of the people ‘answering’ this question didn’t even read it.

[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 40 points 2 weeks ago

A better question would be why Microsoft went with a nonstandard layout when they designed the Xbox controller. Nintendo had been using the A-to-the-right layout since 1990.

[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 43 points 3 weeks ago
  1. Hack together a proof of concept
  2. Works well enough that management slaps a “done” sticker on it
  3. Pile of hacks becomes load bearing
  4. One or two dependencies change, the whole thing falls over
  5. Set evenings and weekends on fire to fix it
  6. Management brags about moving fast and breaking things, engineers quit and become cabbage farmers and woodworkers
  7. New graduates are hired, GOTO 1
[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 76 points 2 months ago

Alternate take: this is the same sort of mark self-sorting that scam artists use.

A reasonable person isn’t gonna reply to a typo-ridden email from a Nigerian prince. But those few who do are going to be easy to get everything from.

Imagine you’re an executive at the company your dad founded. You’re an idiot. Everyone knows you’re an idiot. But you think you’re smart. This guy is willing to consult with you about how your company will use AI (for a modest fee, of course). You don’t understand AI, but you think you do, and you just need someone to help with the details. And everyone has to nod their heads and agree to pay him because they’re afraid of getting fired.

You don’t have to fool everyone.

[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 49 points 2 months ago

For a short adventure / one-shot, I played an intelligence-based tome warlock (using some of the play test materials). His patron was… himself, in the past. He was a terrible evil wizard who realized the error of his ways, wiped his own memory, and restarted. His tome was just his old spell book, most of which was pretty gnarly stuff. Slowly finding that out would have been a fun journey if he was a long-term character.

[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 67 points 3 months ago

Rings similar to “My daddy beat me and I turned out fine,” says man who considers it okay to beat children

1
submitted 7 months ago by becausechemistry@lemm.ee to c/nasa@lemmy.world
[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 91 points 9 months ago

No, don’t you see, in an impossible hypothetical situation, they assume you’d do something against your stated values. You’ve been pwned by a person of logic and intellect, I’m afraid. I’m sorry, but you agree with them now.

[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 58 points 9 months ago

Libertarianism is a theory espoused to those with good intentions by people that have bad intentions.

It doesn’t work for almost anyone. But it super works for some. That’s the point.

[-] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 44 points 9 months ago

I was there

I was there when Aaron Rodgers played for the Jets for three minutes

view more: next ›

becausechemistry

joined 11 months ago