Is Morls like Coral?
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 322
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 322
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
I meant the Battle Royale movie, sorry I should have made that clear
Who cares about the legality?
If somebody's house burnt down, you give them whatever they need. Any company not giving somebody in that situation paid time off is a shitty company. I know for sure my boss would give me whatever I needed and ask if he personally could help in any way.
Employees are humans first and foremost and need to be treated with respect and compassion, not slaves to be exploited and punished.
I know the sequel movie is disliked by many, but I actually like it. It isn't as good as the first one, but I still like it.
Wow that's kinda sad.
We had one that did that as well, but he was just dumb as nails. He would be laying down with his tail around him so it's at his face (looong tail). Then he would hit himself in the face on accident with his tail, this would piss him off so his tail would start wagging in his face. This pissed him off even more so he would grab his tail and bite it, but as soon as he felt that he would realize what he just did and start grooming his tail. Playing it off like he didn't just do something stupid, but was just grooming normally. He did this a lot, because he wasn't always the smartest of the bunch.
Well they do that with their own tails as well, it's just hardwired for cats to become chaos
Because when the Apollo project was ongoing, they only built what they needed to build. Everything was a prototype basically and there were usually different versions of everything going around. Afterwards a lot of the stuff was re-used for later programs, often modified or taken apart for parts. As the budget shrank they needed to be creative. Take a look at the work CuriousMarc and his team is doing with repairing and restoring old Apollo Moon hardware, along with documentation and preservation.
Why can't we simply build the Apollo lander today. Well a couple of reasons.
First of all, like I said it were prototypes, so you'd have to figure out what design to use. All of the documents back then were on paper and not all of it is digitized by a long shot. The amount of documents they produced back then was crazy. And a lot of it was lost over time unfortunately. Puzzling all of that together would be quite some task. Most folk from back then are since dead or at the very least retired. And I for one sometimes forget entire projects I worked on, so good luck getting small details out of those people.
Our idea of what is acceptable, a good idea and safe has changed since the Apollo times. A lot of the design back then included components that were very dangerous and toxic. Not only to be used, but also to manufacture, which we wouldn't find acceptable these days. And things we've later learned were a bad thing to do. So the design would need to be modified to be safer, which would probably cascade into an entire new design.
We've lost so much of the support infrastructure the program relied on. It's hard to understate how much this matters. This is a big thing when people say the moon program was fake. It wasn't just one rocket, one lander, one crew, it was millions upon millions of pieces of infrastructure supporting the whole thing. From jigs to electronics, test equipment, custom tools, handling facilities etc. All with their own backstory, design requirements, documentation etc. A lot of this has been lost, especially when it was outsourced at the time. You'd have to reverse engineer and re-create a lot of that.
Time has moved on and so has technology. Whilst the Apollo program had some cutting edge stuff back then, these days it's ridiculously outdated. It would be very hard to manufacture any of those components today. We're talking about the first generation of integrated circuits, on very expensive ceramics. Using crazy analogue electronics, only understood by the best gurus at the time. Even mechanical computers were used, a lost artform last used in the 80s. You could start redesigning stuff to modern equivalents, but again that would probably snowball into just designing a whole new thing.
Recreating something from that long ago is simply not possible I'm afraid. And even if we could, it would probably make for a pretty shitty lander compared to modern standards.
Well it all depends on what you want to do. I interpreted your question as we need to go there asap, what can we do? And then the answer is we can do an crewed orbit in about a year time.
If we just want to do it with a good chance of survival, building all the shit we need, but still get there soon, the answer would be different. If we just want to go fast, we would probably use all our heavy lift vehicles to build a moon vehicle in LEO. Then put a big ass engine on that and a bunch of fuel and launch the whole thing to the moon. That's something we could do within 5-7 years if we would put our minds and money to it. I feel the suits we currently have in development could be ready within that time as well. The lander would be a problem however, we don't have any of those in development right now. Blue Origin has their Blue Lander, but that's been on the drawing board for so long now. They did get extra funding to get it ready for 2030, but haven't shown their progress publicly, so who knows how far they are. On the other hand, if we want to take some risks for this special mission I'm sure we can get something together in 5-7 years if humanity unites and puts their weight/money/faith behind it.
However if we keep going like we've been going since Apollo was cancelled, we are never going to get there at all. The politics are complicated and the private sector has been hit or miss. Plus with the Musk factor, we don't know what's going to happen. I have zero faith in anything we have going right now.
At the moment, we just cannot.
We don't even have space suits that can operate on the moon. The stuff they use on the ISS is made to be used in a total vacuum only, not walking around in the dust and on sharp rocks. There are new suits in development, but nothing final as far as I know. I'm not sure if any are close to being finished, let alone tested and certified.
There's also no vehicle that can land on the moon with crew right now. Nasa is relying on SpaceX to get their Starship program to the point they can do it. People are divided on this, but anyone with technical knowledge I heard about this say the SpaceX program is very challenging and probably not feasible. Especially with the super optimistic timelines they've been throwing around.
In theory you could put a Crew Dragon with a big trunk of supplies on a Falcon Heavy, which has the delta-V to go to the moon. But obviously that's pretty risky, once you go you're committed. When working in LEO you almost always have some kind of disaster recover scenario available where you abort and get back to earth asap. If you are underway to the moon, there is no turning back. The Crew Dragon has very limited mobility. But I think a trans-lunar injection and orbit around the moon would be possible, with a free return trajectory. So if going around the moon is good enough, that would be possible.
Still it would probably take 9-12 months to put such a mission together and it would be very risky indeed. And like I said, landing on the moon is a total no-go right now.
We should ask Scott Manley to do a video about this, I would love to hear his thoughts on this.
I see projects move over to Gitlab a lot lately, but without porting over the issues. That means a huge amount of history and discussions are lost. If you want to find out why something is the way it is, old issues would be a goldmine. Sometimes they are still up on archived GitHub, but not always.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The fake news is fake news apparently. She has a video on her YouTube where she describes the whole thing and it seems true. However, I don't know what sort of content she does on OnlyFans. She does show the max amount of cleavage possible on YouTube, but I'm not sure if she shows more than that on any other platform. Everything I could find was actual science content, except she is a very attractive lady wearing revealing clothes while telling the story. But I know OnlyFans also does chats for example where pictures don't need to be exchanged at all, people will pay just to talk to an attractive person. She might also do feet pics, which can be highly valuable to some people.
So it's implied she sorta dropped out of school to do porn. But it's nothing like that, she has a couple of degrees already, had a nice side project going with her content creation on multiple platforms including YouTube and didn't see a future for herself with the path she was on. So she switched to doing content creation fulltime.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Well you say that, but I've had legit discussions with coders that use things like Dvorak because it allows them to type faster and thus code faster. I pointed out the actual typing of the code is the easy part and only a very small part of the bigger task. This one coder that swore by Dvorak had an impressive typing speed for sure, but also a reputation he could never push his commits because the linter kept spotting typos. And even then wouldn't get through testing because not all typos are caught by the linter. Of course he was the kind of developer that wrote 3000 lines of code before ever committing anything and testing for himself was beneath him, that was a job for the testers. Once he had lost a couple of days of work because he didn't commit/push and when he booted his machine somehow his files got corrupted and all was lost. After that he was in trouble for the nteenth time and was let go, shame because I liked the guy.
Using alternative layouts to prevent rsi I'm all for, but optimizing typing speed seems like not the way to go. I'm old and learned to type on a typewriter and later horrible 80s keyboards (although some were nice as well), so I don't care, as long as it has keys I'm OK to go.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
It's also a pretty dumb rock to use as an example. If the moon were that color it would be way brighter than it is currently. And with a rock as shiny as that you would clearly see a reflection of the sun as well.
In real life the moon is about as bright as dark asphalt and because of all the dust it is very dull as well. So a matt black paint would probably be closer to what the moon looks like. Still bright as hell compared to the nothingness that surrounds it. Our eyes are also very good at low light conditions, once we get used to the dark a little bit of light goes a long way. So we can even pick out shadows in the moonlight on earth. A brighter moon would be annoying I think, imagine having some nights that look like early evening on a sunny day. But if we evolved with it we would be used to it I guess.
Just like with flat earth the glowing moon theory fails to explain the phases of the moon or things like eclipses. And why the glow doesn't follow black body radiation, but instead perfectly follows the tell tale signs of reflected sunlight, Fraunhofer lines and all. And where the energy to generate that light would come from, making something glow as bright as the moon takes a lot of power. And why that power source selectively lights some parts some of the time. And where does the sunlight that hits the moon ends up, if it's not reflected.
I would think it's a troll, but these days you'd never know. Even if a troll for example claims vaccines cause autism for the grift, idiots still believe it.
Come take a look at this cliche - ding
My idea of a responsible adult: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmsbP13xu6k
Sure just saying, not trolling at all.
Solar drives energy prices down, not up. In the summer the energy price regularly goes negative because there is so much solar available.
And it isn't even remotely true, other countries have higher energy prices than Germany within the EU. The Netherlands for example has crazy high energy prices. And that's in absolute numbers, not even corrected for things like GDP.
Yeah that sucks, they haven't shared the source, only what site it's from.
This is the closest I could find: https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&year=-1&source=public
But this includes all sources, where the chart shown only includes renewable sources. I can't find it on the site, but I'm kinda dumb so maybe somebody else can find it.
If they can keep that fucker McConnell going, they sure as hell can continue to reanimate the corpse that is Trump.
CORAL!!!!