Kerbart

You answered your own question. Ubuntu is very easy to use, but Linux in general has a command-line-driven reputation, where you need to do sudo-this and sudo-that to accomplish anything. It might not be hard, and personally I find it delightfully easy to accomplish “hard” things by copy-paste commands found online, as opposed to following three pages on instructions on where to click next, but yes, command lines scare people because it makes them feel helpless (a blank screen with a prompt, and no clue what to type...) Add to that, that these days, Windows is really good. BSOD’s are exceptionally rare and most tasks the average user cares about can be accomplished without effort. So why would they switch from something that works well to something that has a reputation of being complex and hard, without offering clear benefits to them? It’s not “being afraid,” it’s an unwillingness to invest time and effort when there’s no clear return for them on that investment. I’m not saying there are no benefits in running Linux, but those benefits are invisible or meaningless for the people you’re talking about.

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.

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.

* taps mic* ”Is this thing on?”

"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 statistics but we all know how well that resonates ("spyware!") with the community. Let's be fair: 95% of those who want a beta program want it so they can see what KSP 2 looks like before it's released. Personally I hope that there will be a "public" beta for the well-known youtubers and twitchers; public in the sense that they can share their streams with the public. Take2 gets their high quality beta-tests with usable feedback, we get to see the game, the streamers get their public, everyone wins.

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.

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 ever have seen the daylight with that priority mindset.

You were able to find the quote button. It's not that much different

You mean from "the world?" I thought you meant from the developers.

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.

Ah yes, nuclear fusion as an energy source, just ten years away. Should be right on time to power my flying car!

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 Russia campaign shows it's not impossible. For an info-graphic for the general audience (me?) I'd consider something like this (please consider it as an example, not a guide like "how to make it"): What are the particles. What does the grouping mean? Lifespan - perhaps depicted on three of four parallel timelines (one for each family) - and a short caption why lifespan is important Size (if there's a relation to lifespan perhaps the two combined in a scatter plot Interactions And then maybe at the bottom of the poster your "handy dandy here's it all in one graph" diagram, which would now be a lot easier to read when loaded up on the previous knowledge.

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? If the diagram is scaled than the relative masses are already depicted, so no need for showing numbers there. I would cap the edges in the graph with arrowheads. Nothing says “interaction” like that. And do add a legend for what each interaction in the clean graph is because that is not obvious otherwise.

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.

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?

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 are really chance and not due to some underlying principle we are not aware of. Nowadays you can find videos on youtube that explain such things in a satisfactory way. Yes, I do think that Newton’s Principia was as incomprehensible and esoteric for the masses back then (mind you it required a whole new kind of math that was invented along the way for it) as string theory and the standard model is for us today, while it is something explained to high schoolers fifty years from now as “basic knowledge of physics.”

I suspect that “upending every other calculation made” is subject to the same hyperbole as when a graphic designer tells me “it’s hard to imagine two typefaces more different from each other than Helvetica and Arial”

It's hard for laymen like me to imagine that an anomaly of 2.5 parts per billion in the magnetic strength of the muon means "brand new physics." As in, "Newton was wrong all that time?"

The opposite of Dunning-Kruger is "the curse of knowledge" - the website developers probably assume that you know that when you float over a link with your mouse it shows the destination of the link (mailto:support@kerbalspaceprogram.com) but: not everyone knows this it doesn't work like that on a tablet or phone (although admittedly chances are you do have an email app set up on those, and not necessarily on a pc/mac because it can run inside the browser) I've ran into this so many times that I just set up an email client on my desktop machine as not to be bothered by this.

It's just amazing how no one has replied to this thread.

Support on the KSP website is just a "sendto" URL which will open in whatever application you have set up to be your default mail application, to send an email to support@kerbalspaceprogram.com. You probably clicked "yes" without properly reading the dialog that prompted you to ask if this was the app you wanted it to be the default for mail.

The issue is purely hinges and solar panels. I've had the same problem. It even happens on the launch pad when you extend the panels and fold out the hinges. I solved it by "don't do that."

Just imagine KSP had built-in scripting, kRPC style. You could test every engine, its fuel flow, performance. Then test every tank - how long does it take to drain it? Test for a craft with all kinds of landing gear in all kinds of conditiojs if it "walks" or not. And all automated.

Temporarily remove experience stars ?

When you review stored science you have a few options: delete it keep it send it when there's a lab available, submit it for processing You will have to click on the pod that contains the science, and then right-click, review. Then you can decide for each one if you want to keep it or process it in the lab.