Jump to content

Kerbart

Members
  • Content Count

    3,576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,675 Excellent

5 Followers

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. Bill Nye might be "the science guy" but he's first and foremost an engineer. As for Bob, short for Robert, and the tendency for Kerbal things to go "boom" - I think of Robert Oppenheimer.
  2. The naivety to expect that the game will come out anywhere in 2022 (or—gasp—earlier) is adorable. If they stick to their 2022 promise I suspect it'll be a Christmas release but given how software development tends to be grossly optimistic about delivery dates I would not exclude 2023 as the actual year of publication. There's a reason Squad continuous to work on KSP and we should be grateful for it.
  3. * taps mic* ”Is this thing on?”
  4. "More" does not equal "better." Having hundreds of "beta testers" (early access buyers) gives you a tremendous amount of noise and well-intended but meaningless feedback like "my rocket starts to shake after launch when I rotate it." I do agree that we need better testing though; currently with each new version a roundtrip to Minmus seems to reveal glitches that somehow weren't caught in testing, begging the question what gets tested. The only benefit I see from a large-scale beta program is when it's used to generate large scale data an what needs to be tested by sending back usage stat
  5. I do not “know” the product is mediocre. I wouldn’t spend thousands of hours playing the game if I thought it was mediocre. there's a lot more I'd like to answer to that post but it's derailing the thread already as it is.
  6. None of us wants to see bugs. However, no bugs get fixed if development of the product is completely halted. It amazes me that something that glaringly obvious is never taken in consideration. If you don’t introduce new features, interest wanes. When interest wanes, sales dry up (and there’s precious little left of that for starters). If sales dry up, income dries up. If income dries up, developers don’t get paid. If developers don’t get paid, bugs don’t get fixed. If only it were so simple to say after the 1.0 release “from now on, only fix bugs.” But I doubt a 1.1 version would eve
  7. You were able to find the quote button. It's not that much different
  8. You mean from "the world?" I thought you meant from the developers.
  9. 1.11 just came out with a brand new feature (at least for stock), texture upgrades and bug fixes. I'm not convinced that it's not getting much attention.
  10. Ah yes, nuclear fusion as an energy source, just ten years away. Should be right on time to power my flying car!
  11. One thing to consider is what you want to achieve with the diagram. To me it seems like a great "cheat sheet" for physics students, or a laminated companion to a book about particle physics. If the intention is to make an infographic about the standard model, this approach is a bit more challenging. The golden rule that I apply for charts is “if it needs explaining it's not a good chart,” and if you want to put the bar even higher: “if it takes more than half a second to see what the chart is about it's not a great chart.” That sounds incredibly hard, but Minard's famous chart of Napoleon's Ru
  12. Is it clear that the depictions are to scale? I’d say no, but at the same time it’s a very intuitive depiction of size, and the size that matters is mass, not radius, so in that sense I think it’s achieving it’s goal. I like the cleaner version more, especially if it’s aimed at non-physicists like me. I know that an electronvolt is a measure for energy in particle fysics, and dividing it by c2 turns it into a mass (I think. Wait, isn’t energy already equivalent to mass?) but I have no perception of what those numbers are. Is a million of them a banana? A billion of them? Does it matter? I
  13. For me 10n with a negative scale makes more sense. “-25” reads intuitively as less than “-20” without mental acrobatics required to translate it to a negative exponent.
  14. I’m spectacularly unqualified and not a physicist, so I’ll take “this is just how we do it” for an answer, but why is the timescale expressed in 10-n with n ranging from -30 to 0? Wouldn’t it be simpler and less confusing to display it as 10n with n ranging from 0 to 30, and getting rid of the double negation? How do you determine that a top quark lives for 1025 seconds? That’s like 317 million billion years, if I got the math right?
  15. Not to mention the invention of superscript, making it possible to typeset E=mc2 without java-esque contortions. But I digress. Over time the number of people understanding the new theory grow, as well as their ability to explain it, leading to more people understanding it and able to explain it, etc. The math (and tools available for it) also become more available. When I was in high school my physics teacher was not really able to explain the uncertainty principle (to a point where it’s clearly different from “we can’t measure good enough”) or how random events in quantum physics a
×
×
  • Create New...