• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,447 Excellent


About Kerbart

  • Rank
    Mun Marketeer

Profile Information

  • Location The Meadowlands, NJ
  • Interests Rockit sience

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Kerbart

    'Io' movie (2019) - with extra epic wrong science

    Ironically, no fact checking took place to see what the movie was about. Just some assumptions based on the interpretation of a trailer. Yes, the movie is bad, and yes, science as usual takes a back ride. But it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be: The balloon is—shockingly—not used to fly to Io. Io is indeed depicted as a tiny moon full of volcanoes. Apparently those are feeding a power station (I do not deny the questionability of that) so the decision was made to convert the power station to a temporary colony (I guess because a lot of the required infrastructure was already there) The element of urgency is introduced by the story element of a much better alternative being discovered, and all resources are now spent towards launching a ship towards that; time's running out to make on board to a ship to Io. Io was probably picked as a metaphor: after humanity poisoned Earth, it's forced to retreat to one of the most inhospitable places in the solar system. Again, I'm not saying it's a good movie; far from that. However, it's ironic that criticism on the movie makers about fact-checking is largely based on the same perceived sin - just making some assumptions without checking what is actually true. And it's totally uncessary as the movie leaves plenty of reality-bashing scenes available for the hordes: a 10" ground based telescope providing better imagery of Jupiter than Hubble ever can give us Ammonium detection with flames got the colors wrong and the need for it The balloon. Oh, don't get me started on the balloon... There's plenty to bash. But the movie suggests that the makers are perfectly aware that Io is a nasty place full of volcanoes (it's a plot aspect), and nowhere in the movie is the suggestion made that a balloon is used to fly to it.
  2. But worth it. Imagine the fun it is to handle a rocket loaded with fluorine. That stuff makes red fuming nitric acid look as benign as gasoline.
  3. You overestimate the community. There'd be complaining about updates "that don't do anything."
  4. Kerbart


    @Green Baron I used to have that alarm clock! @Gargamel is a gap of 12 worth anything these days?
  5. What makes you think they are not? Along industrialized countries, the US has the highest death rate in traffic, and teenager age group forms the largest statistic within that. Weak enforcement of traffic laws, laughable testing of driving skills and a general attitude where problems are always the fault of someone else* do contribute as well, of course. To get back to the OP: BMW loved advertising in the 70s and 80s with claims that all that horsepower was a “safety feature” just for the case lined out. I always smelled the bull manure coming off the pages when I saw those advertisements. Personally, I think that most situations where extra speed is needed to get out of an unsafe situation is caused by grave judgement errors (some might say “reckless driving”). If you're on a 2-lane road and your car is limited to 50kmh and the truck in front of you is doing 48... don't pass. It's not safe. * My “favorite” case is the family of a high school graduate who was drunk, and speeding. He ran his car off the road and got launched through the windshield when it flipped over (because, of course, he wasn't wearing a seatbelt) and died. His parent sued Ford, because the roof had collapsed (as the car violently flipped over), and if he had worn his seatbelt he would have been killed because of that.
  6. Kerbart


    Trains and lego sets are too tempting...
  7. It goes a bit deeper than that: The nuclear industry chose to ignore the fact that properly understanding risk assessment is really hard for the masses The nuclear industry also chose to advertise itself with terms as “perfectly safe” while cutting corners on design and execution. From a statistical point of view, the track record is great; see point one. They're focusing on the wrong metric. It's like complaining you didn't win the 100m sprint. "But I took the least amount of steps!” Yeah, but that's not what it's about... As @DDE mentioned, radiation is invisible, so the public has to trust experts on what they're saying. Trust that got breached continuously If your teenage child has a history of throwing multiple wild parties in your house while you're out, would you leave him unsupervised for another weekend when you need a break? “Trust me dad, I've learned my lesson. I won't do it again. I don't need supervision.” Hey, we want to fly a nuclear reactor over your head in space. But trust us, nothing can happen. It's easy to blame the nimbies and treehuggers, but let's not forget that in the late 1950s and early 1960s the vast majority of the population had no problem with nuclear power. It's not that the nuclear industry had a problem gaining the trust of the people; they lost it. That's a lot harder to get back. The public resistance against launching nuclear reactors in space is irrational. It's also understandable. And the same industry that blames them for standing in the way of progress is the one that got themselves there in the first place.
  8. Kerbart


    Is this a challenge? m = 10000 def isprime(n): return all(n % i for i in range(2, n)) primes = [i for i in range(2, m + 1) if isprime(i)] gaps = [j - i for i, j in zip(primes, primes[1:])] print(max(gaps)) Anyway, 947
  9. I can feel your grief, but right from its introduction the complaint about the Wolfhound was that it was ridiculously overpowered, and many had the suspicion that it was a case of mixed up engine stats. I didn't use the wolfhound at all for that particular reason; it just felt wrong to use it. While it's not nice to see an engine with such wonderful stats being nerfed, chances that it gets undone are slim; and it's likely that you're in a small minority. The good news is that someone (you?) can make a MM mod to fix the problem.
  10. Kerbart

    Mechjeb as cheating?

    There's a grey area that is not applicable to the vast majority of players here. It's not cheating if you just use it to play the game the way you like it. Maybe you're tired of putting a rocket in orbit for the 500th time. Maybe you get frustrated with not being able to rendez-vous or dock despite your countless attempts. Maybe landing always results in a Kerbal-spacecraft-shaped crater on the surface of Minmus and you're tired of that. Mechjeb allows you to enjoy the game and that's what it's most about. It's cheating when you start to take credit for things Mechjeb is doing. Calling yourself "master docker" and posting videos on youtube where you make it look like you are doing the docking instead of Mechjeb. Aside from getting caught in a trivially easy way, that would be cheating. But I doubt anyone here does that. All in all, Mechjeb isn't cheating. At least not in my opinion.
  11. Kerbart


    821. No gap to fame.
  12. Kerbart


    467 Back to small gaps
  13. Kerbart


    And I bet 401 is next!
  14. Kerbart


    So... 389?
  15. Kerbart


    That is, indeed, a prime. So is 283, I hope.