JoeSchmuckatelli

Yeah - some old guy probably flicked the switch because he just could not take it anymore.

Then you have a problem you need to work on. To start, take gender, ignorance and stereotypes out of what you wrote. You just asked if you should ignore other peoples' problems. There is a whole lot more to unpack in what you wrote - if you can figure out your own bias by dissecting your quote... You will know the answer to your question.

The James Webb Space Telescope resumed science operations Dec. 20, after Webb’s instruments intermittently went into safe mode beginning Dec. 7 due to a software fault triggered in the attitude control system -from the Blog

You misread me. I agree with all 3. All 3 should be used as to not leave anyone out. However - every pronoun that has been used in the last month is 'they'. 'They' is not inclusive to those who don't identify as 'they'. (Excluding 2 of 3 is neither polite nor honest)

'They' is getting annoying. Would be less annoying if some were not 'they'. It is okay to have a 'he' like Jeb and a 'she' like Val. If Mitbles Kerman really prefers to be a 'they' I will respect that. Please stop with the over use of 'they'. It smacks of corporate dishonesty and pandering. Edit (please see my follow up response below for clarity)

According to 19th-century folklorist William Henderson, redcaps live in the string of ruined castles stretching along the border between England and Scotland (1879: 253). They favour the castles that saw violent or tyrannical events—which in many ways should be most of them. Some believe his name comes from his tendency to soak his cap in fresh blood

Nope Yup

I find it hard to believe that with a whole new engine that the aero is copypasta. It may not be significantly more complex than KSP was but it does not have to be super complicated (cross winds, vortices, etc) to be improved over the original. I doubt it very much that many players want an aero redux so complete that they often have to deal with weather as a go-no go criterion for launches.

Reminds me of a urinal mat https://www.google.com/search?q=triangular+urinal+red+splash&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwj_tITG85f8AhUV8ckDHdYFDCIQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=triangular+urinal+red+splash&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzIFCAAQogQyBQgAEKIEMgUIABCiBDoFCCEQqwI6AggpOgQIIRAKUIIKWJs_YMg_aAFwAHgAgAGaAogBrxCSAQUwLjkuNJgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=deapY7-mCZXip84P1ouwkAI&bih=718&biw=412&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&prmd=isvn#imgrc=1sKxQSQMJSxnoM

(yeah, I know there are trees - but we've already discussed trees)

I like how no one is talking about the important stuff, like the clouds, grass or light on the runway SMH

This is one of the things that we identify as a potential problem - we being those of us who serve and are wary of the cost of the benefit. The benefit is a highly competent, motivated and professional military - the cost is an elite /caste within the society that has a different language and expectation of normalcy than the others. Side note: Boneheaded Jarheads have a reason to be vain: we are AWESOME!

Wen Hop?

Welcome, fam!

This is a 'feature' of the United States' "All Volunteer Force". We identified this at least as early as the 90s. There is a 'class' of people who are more than merely willing to serve (approximately 8% of the population) and typically they have a family history of Service. It is a potential problem for us. If you consider that a significant proportion of the remaining 92% are only willing to 'take' or have given to them the benefits of living in a Democracy without ever bearing the burden of supporting it, that is a weakness. Certainly I don't view the entire remaining part of the electorate as parasites (there are many ways to give back to society other than military service), but there is a large part for whom the idea of serving others is confusing and distasteful. For some, it would literally be a dissonant thought that they actually owe anything to the system that enables them. I think a lot of people subconsciously recognize that - which is why you see a lot of support for 'taking care of veterans' or 'veteran discounts' and other, similar 'thank yous' that permeate American society. Within the 8% you find a sense of pride and duty that permeates generationally. A presumptive normalcy in the concept of service. We are actually confused by and find dissonance in the people we meet who would never consider serving. *The percentage of the population 'willing to serve' during times of war raises to between 19 and 23 percent. The 8% is the proportion of the population that have family traditions of service and who regularly volunteer to serve even during peace. The proportion between the 8% and the 19-23% don't necessarily want to - but they are willing to - and if needed they would not try to avoid serving. But they don't necessarily seek out service or see it as a duty.

That got a laugh!

You can probably simplify this by asking how you can magnetically isolate a ton of normal matter... And then what the isolation architecture would have to look like if you want to accelerate it. i.e. what kind of power do you need to give the magnets to resist the inertia of a ton of matter? And how /or does it scale with the amount of acceleration you might demand. The problem is that you are asking for an answer based on current materials science - when your sci fi guys may have developed a way miniaturize a magnetic containment device. That is why handwavium is so powerful.

I read these two articles... And they leave me with an odd sense. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-james-webb-space-telescope-is-changing-our-understanding-of-the-universe/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomers-grapple-with-jwsts-discovery-of-early-galaxies1/%3famp=true Webb is providing data that don't fit expectations. I think that's clear. What's odd/interesting is how human nature interacts with new information. There is a tension that happens when presented with something new or unexpected. Typically, the reactions humans have to new information is the tendency to either find a way to make the new information fit into their existing model or having to change their preconceptions (model) to fit the new information. There isn't a universal or 'better' way to do this - we all do it, sometimes without recognizing it. But there is a bit more comfort when you can make the new information fit into your existing model ("I wasn't wrong") than having to adjust your model to the newly revealed reality ("I wish I knew then, what I know now"). The terms in psychology for this are assimilation and accommodation. The process of accommodation is in tension with that of assimilation. While accomodation seeks to create new schemas, assimilation seeks to relate new information to old cognitive structures (schemas). In order to develop intelligence, organisms must balance accommodation with assimilation. https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-accommodation-and-assimilation.html Anyway, as I read the articles above, (both relate to the fact that Webb is seeing mature galaxies at redshifts (presumed ages) where there should be (under the existing models) nothing more than proto galaxies and stars) I began to see that Cosmologists and astronomers are struggling right now with both assimilation and accommodation wrt the data. Some will feel like they've staked their careers on established models and seek to assimilate the new info to those predictions... Others will take the new information and question the very foundation of presumptions that led to faulty predictions - to accommodate the new observations into new predictive models that may or may not resemble the current 'understanding'. I think the next few years will be a very interesting time for those of us who are interested in cosmology. We should see plenty of 'Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' articles along side a few 'Man, we need to rethink EVERYTHING' papers. The really interesting thing will be to see in five or ten years which direction the 'mainstream' of cosmology has moved. Addendum - I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who reads the articles to comment on whether you are getting the same sense as I do.

Chicken, beef and pork Tamales, salsa verde, Spanish style rice and frijoles negros. It's become a Christmas Eve tradition! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you all

Green Kows = extra Methane. https://newswire.caes.uga.edu/story/3686/rotten-fuel.html#:~:text=As they break down%2C fruits,vegetables need to be cured. https://news.umich.edu/green-methane-from-artificial-photosynthesis-could-recycle-co2/

I've only discovered her in the last year. She's among the several female researchers who have gained a following and do a good job of science communicating that I will click on when the title is interesting. I do find her sense of humor to be both droll and very German. It appeals to me. I haven't seen her in the 'grousing' mode you describe - but I can imagine that those videos exist. Especially if she is one of the ones willing to ask questions about MG. There was a 'flavor' of that in the video I linked - but it wasn't obnoxious. A lot of the articles I've read over the years (whether nibbling at the edges of the DM dominance or outright questioning it) have shown a bit of 'having their back up' as they know a firestorm of criticism is inbound. They clearly know their environment. This is contrasted by a lot of smugness in the latter years by DM proponents. (The open hostility of the Aughts gave way to smug assurance in the Teens). Things really did not start to change until the TRGB data and other standard candle questions started coming out and not being proven immediately wrong. It's kind of a new development (last 5 years or so) that even the phrase 'Crisis in Cosmology' has gained traction. But I'm like you - don't really have a dog in the fight - yet I am quite interested in what comes of this dustup.

Excellent point

I've been a sideline observer of the DM or NOTHING (what about MG) DM=SETTLED SCIENCE!! debate since around 2004. Back then the best 'pro and lay-interest' board was Bad Astronomy. It was generally a fantastic place for people interested in Astronomy, Cosmology and Physics. You could ask about anything; galaxy distribution, String Theory, M-Theory, Black Holes, hell, how ballistics worked or how the Shuttle and ISS maintained orientation. Lively discussions, detailed explanations, and respectful discourse. There were interested Neanderthals like me and actual working physicists and cosmologists all exchanging information and talking about recent discoveries. It was great. But... Bring up MOND, which had been kicked about since the 80's, and any questioning about the basis of DM/DE, those folks were regularly, routinely and harshly shouted down in virtually every thread where anyone even asked a question. Some few die-hards kept at it; MOND and its successor questions refused to completely go away - and the harsh responses inevitably followed. The Bullet Cluster (imaged by Chandra in 2004) was the predominant 'support example' for the supremacy of DM as the basis of the Standard Model of Cosmology. If a poster did not assume DM existed and DE was behind the absolutely proven expansion of the universe as settled science, guaranteed later because Perlmutter, Schmidt and Reiss won the Nobel for it in 2011 (work published in 1998???) - if you did not presume this, 15 people would come on to the board to explain in no uncertain terms why you were an idiot for even asking the question. Beyond the board, careers were sidelined for anyone not toeing the line - and again the DM crowd would crow about this researcher or that researcher who published a paper questioning DM and then got zero funding and had to leave their post at _______ (prestigious university). That always struck me as contra-science. Over the years, DM has been searched for and never found. Lack of direct evidence does not equal 'doesn't exist' - but it's literally taken 20 years for serious and respectable people to even be able to ask the question 'are we sure it's actually settled science?' Hell, when Freedman and others started showing TRGB data did not match up with the standard candle expansion numbers - they were met with hostility... but if you read the 'Crisis in Cosmology' stuff today; they're 'not wrong.' The Bullet Cluster has also been shown to be predicted by some of the MG work. The point of all of this is that DM isn't settled science. It's not 100% guaranteed to be correct. It might still be - but it is worth (and solid scientists are) looking into alternative explanations for the observations out there. 20 years of people having to either toe the line and get in line for funding into DM (thousands of researchers) or risk their careers (dozens) looking at possible alternatives. Is that what Professional Science is supposed to look like?

Streaming is also relatively new. I mean I remember when e-mail was novel, disk drives were measured in mb, and if you wanted to download a patch for a game you started it just before you went to bed. So the pace of change in computing and the internet has been insane. I don't remember ever seeing a rocket launch on the internet until just a few years ago. I have watched televised launches (including the ill fated shuttle) - but what really caught my imagination was SX trying to land a rocket - that was pure insanity. I'm pretty sure I watched all of that on the net. So I'd think that rocket videos and SX are likely connected (even if indirectly).