razark

Not yet. They're equal opportunity late, it seems.

Not much longer now until Squad announces that Kerbals are, in fact, real, and that this has been a training and selection process the whole time. I wonder who they will select to take back to their homeworld, along with Scott Manley?

I bet it's going to be something that's going to make part of the community really happy and excited, and part of the community really mad, and then we'll argue over what it should have been, how it should be done, why it was the wrong/right thing, and who should get the blame for it all. You know, something we've never seen before.

Multiplayer combat-themed mod available only on Steam workshop for consoles. Edit: With plushies available to everyone who pays for the pre-order DLC version.

This is the internet! You can't just sit around here, simply having your own opinion! You have to argue why you're right and everyone else is wrong!

Yes, but only one end is supposed to be on fire.

Wasn't everybody's?

I quite often find myself listening to Jesus Christ Superstar while I'm working.

You can follow a thread without posting in it.

It was time to leave the office, so I was rushed to get my thoughts out. My question on mirrors being viable was more to do with the capability of that level of technology being able to create a large enough mirror and manipulate it in a way to encode information. Indeed. Such a system, with known neighbors so close, would be a great driver for exploration.

Monthly Budgets? Yeah, that's the one I'm using.

We had thought of that, but how do you tell the difference between an intentional signal fire and a large wildfire? Using mirrors would be a more reliable method of showing intention, but would it be viable? True, meaningful communication would not be likely.

Yeah, in our in-office discussion, we completely overlooked the telescope. I haven't seen the conference, so I didn't get that detail. Now the question is, with Renaissance era tech, how could they signal each other and would any sort of meaningful communication be possible?

The question was not for us to detect them. It was "what would it take for beings on TRAPPIST-1 e to detect life/civilization of TRAPPIST-1 f and g?". Edit: But that was a very informative post.

Question came up with a co-worker. Based on how close these three planets are, at what technology level would they be able to determine: A) The existence of life on one or both of the others; and B) The presence of an intelligent civilization on the others?

I like the idea of the three options. I'm using a funding mod that costs per Kerbal per month, and just hand-edit the file to add funds back after hiring.

You: "P-38. Only fighter in production at the beginning of the war..." Tater: "The P-51 was in full production before the US entered the war..." You: "Ummm, sorry, please quote facts, and back them up." The P-51 was in production by October 1941, prior to the US entering the war in December. This is what Tater stated. You objected to this, stating that the P-51 was not in production by September 1939. This is an objection to something Tater did not say, but you challenged him to back it up with facts.

You objected to @tater's statement that "The P-51 was in full production before the US entered the war...", which is accurate. Tater did not state it was in production before the war started. That is the fact you should have objected to to make your point.

"After the arrival of the initial aircraft in the UK in October 1941, the first Mustang Mk Is entered service in January 1942, the first unit being 26 Squadron RAF." By the bolded portion, the aircraft must have been in production prior to the US being involved in the war, even if they were not yet in active service.

They built a handful of them. With the additional weight of guns, ammo, and armor, plus the worsened aerodynamics from the additional gun turrets, it ended up with poorer performance and had a hard time keeping up with the formation. The chin turret developed for it was added to the B-17G model, though. They also tried the same thing with a single B-24. Edit: Back on topic, I've always liked the P-38. Can't really say why. Probably the unique look of it.

Does the YB-40 count as a Heavy Fighter? It was an interesting idea that didn't work out too well.

Nope. My proposed idea has all players in a synced timeframe all the time. I specifically stated that this would work because all players would be working together. "Multiplayer alone" sounds like it more closely fits you model. A player cannot interact with an object that should exist and be interactive in their timeframe, because a player in the future has interacted with that object. Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere. To-may-to/To-mah-to, Po-tay-to/Unwillingness to admit a paradox exists.

To me, this sounds like a player is blocked from doing something by what a player in the "future" has done. While I'm not docking or colliding with, or EVAing a Kerbal to, it, the fact that it will be there affects what I can do at that location "now". I'd call that an interaction. There's also the fact that a player cannot interact with objects that should be able to interact with, because another player has already interacted with it in the future. Rescue contracts. Pardon me. I meant that it is not a paradox-free solution.

Why? It's Day 5, and the station does not yet exist. Why should I be able to see it? I would hope not, since it did not exist on day 5, and therefore could not have been anywhere. I don't get why people don't see why this is a paradox that should not be allowed to exist, and can easily be prevented. If I can see/interact with the vessel before it exists, then the paradox occurs. Why? Player One exists on day 5, and can dock with and interact with craft independent of what time frame player Two is in. Locking what player One can do based on what player Two does in the "future" is a paradox. What if a craft has no "owner"? What time frame would it exist in then? Craft popping in and out of existence, or jumping from place to place based on who is logged on is not really a solution. No, they explicitly don't. If day 5 is affected by an object that doesn't exist until day 100, then... it's a paradox. What if the object exists on day 5 and day 100? Can I interact with the Day 5 version, or does the day 100 instance determine what is/isn't "real"? So, I can place a base on day 5 in the exact same location as someone else places a base on day 100? What happens on day 100, when the bases begin to exist in the same location? This system does allow paradoxes to occur. Arguing otherwise is simply ignoring the facts.

Neither. They begin an arms race to develop the "ultimate weapon", but end up with nothing more than Mutually Assured Destruction, meaning that whoever pushes the Big Red Button first dooms both of them to annihilation.