Not to burst the bubble, but i'm pretty sure that, even blocking more than 50% of the aperture, the astronomer still wouldn't be able to see the person. The astronomer would just see a significantly darker and warped version of the thing behind the person, since the person, much like the various mirror assemblies and mounts inside the telescope, are all wildly out of focus.
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 588
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 588
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
This is not oniony in the least
Wish I had more than one upvote to give. Movements and groups name themselves after their targeted focus, yet you never see someone going up to the teacher's union rep and saying "but shouldn't you also care about the other jobs?"
Say what you will about PETA (I'm sure I could say a lot), but you never see someone criticising them for their "narrow minded focus solely on the welfare of animals, without regard for the ethical treatment of humans, plants and fungi"
You'll never catch someone criticising a homeless shelter for not doing enough to shine light on the prevalence of gun violence.
So why does anyone treat these bad-faith criticisms as anything more or less than attempts to silence the already-marginalised groups for which these movements are advocating?
Hey, not a problem. All Haynes does is lay out the actual texts we have with dry wit. Yeah, that sounds about right for Athena. Consider Ariadne, who got seduced by Athena's champion into betraying her father, then when she ran away with Theseus, he left her on a fucking island to die. In one version, he's given the excuse that Dionysus wants to marry her, and so he still leaves her without explanation or apology. Every one of Athena's "champions" are dicks. From war-criminal Odysseus to serial abductor and pedophile Theseus, to Mr. "I'm going to go kill some random lady who's bothering nobody on an island" himself, Perseus.
You either are on her bad side, or you're a smug dick who is so awful that you've got Athena's respect, the most dubious honour in the Kosmos.
Absolutely. If nothing else, Haynes shows just how much mortals (particularly women) should despise Athena. Athena is not your friend. The Mousai were chill, and the Moirai didn't fuck around, content to do their duty to the universe, but the big gods, the Olympians? They were pretty much all deeply awful beings, not worthy of respect, only fear. Even if you were "lucky" enough to end up attracting their attention (either because they seduced and/or raped your mother, because they want to seduce you, because they want you to be their champion in some petty chess game, or all three), the best you could hope for was living a life tormented by all of the other gods who didn't choose you to be their special little toy, then dying and regretting all your life choices in the afterlife.
Everyone should read Pandora's Jar by Natalie Haynes. One of the most eye-opening and comprehensive studies of Greek mythology I've ever encountered.
Well, since the only myths we are given are not from her perspective, but her enemies', we can't say for sure, but consider:
You are a faithful priestess of Athena on a remote island. One day, the literal God of the Sea and Tempestuous Rage decides to walk into Athena's Temple and brutally rape you. Athena, the goddess you have so faithfully served, but who refused to protect her own priestess in her own temple from her own uncle, takes some serious offense at the sacrilege of her priestess being raped in her temple, and the Goddess of Wisdom decides that the only appropriate action is to punish the priestess by cursing you to never be able to be in the company of anyone ever again, and to add insult to injury and betrayal, you've been turned into a monster. Now, you have just been raped, cursed and transformed, and so you run away to an island. Now, when random men start coming to your island to "slay the vile monster", what do YOU do? The last time a man came to your island, he raped you and literally ended your existence as a human being, and the clear and stated intention of these men is to kill you. So yeah, you probably don't feel too bad about some dick-waving "heroes" getting turned to stone.
And when that one guy inevitably comes along with the help of Athena and chops off your head? Turns out that not only were you pregnant the whole time from the rape, but your children are born from the gushing wound from your beheading and are a flying horse and a giant.
Oh yeah, your head? Athena was so proud of herself for all of this shit that she made your severed, tortured death mask her personal symbol and stuck it to her fucking armor to intimidate her enemies.
It comes from Portuguese, it seems, meaning "big head" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cachalot
I am dubious of your intermediate and final claims. For something to be necessary, it means that one cannot go without it. Is procreation a biological imperative, with strong positive reinforcement from the individual's biological feedbacks? Sure. But is it necessary? Strictly, no.
I don't think you can make the claim that someone saying it is not necessary is inherently biased. To claim that procreation is not strictly necessary is a neutral, objectively true position. The bias in the perspective of "child-free" is the implied framing of the lack of procreation as a personal or moral good. Procreation is, again, unnecessary, and is (in many ways literally) a burden. Whether one frames that unnecessary burden as positive or negative is at issue here.
I don't appreciate the claim that people must be biased in order to observe simple facts, denuded of emotion.
- JumpRemoved
Which are you in?
It also just makes sense on a practical level. You can always put on another layer, but there are only so many layers you can remove in the heat.
- JumpRemoved
Which are you in?
Was this purposefully cropped to remove attribution to the artist? Surely nobody would be that bad at cropping.
The US constitution disagrees with you. Specifically, the insurrection clause.
Ironfox is excellent
At this point I use tor for most things, with ironfox as a quick fallback.
No, because what is being shown here is simply the electron cloud of each atom. Two atoms with overlapping electron clouds are bonded. In order to cause fusion their nuclei must combine.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The throne has been abdicated ever since Comet Drop. They're just making video versions of the old ones. Someone's gotta give serious answers to absurd scientific questions!
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I'm the other guy, wolframhydroxide. my comment was originally going to be a response to this person.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Indeed, my own comment was originally going to be a reply to this comment.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Let's consider what it would take to have unbreakable (effectively infinite) surface tension:
Either existing intermolecular forces would need to be dialed to infinity, or a new intermolecular force must come into action. In either case, it would make it energetically favourable for gaseous water to immediately condense into liquid whenever a gaseous molecule interacted with another water molecule. It would be an ice-ix scenario. All water would fall out of the atmosphere within hours, everything which uses lungs would find them filling with fluid. No water could be poured or create any droplet smaller than itself or otherwise separate from other water. However, that's not even the weirdest bit.
If this new or altered intermolecular force functionally increased the attractive forces between molecules of water, and only water, to infinity, all water would immediately collapse such that the individual atoms would undergo fusion, breaking the bonds of the molecules in a conflagration of nuclear fire.
But let's assume that it reaches just before the point at which the atomic bonds break. The water will likely take on the properties of a glass, becoming effectively solid, everywhere, just like ice-ix.
So let's be more generous and assume that the intermolecular forces are increased to be only strong enough to make it effectively impossible to break surface tension. We'd see a significantly higher viscosity, but what else?
Well, the intermolecular forces will probably still SIGNIFICANTLY decrease the solubility of pretty much everything, everywhere, all at once (but especially covalent gases, which do not dissociate).
This means that, in every living thing, at the same time, bubbles of oxygen and nitrogen will be coming out in the blood/hemolymph/cell membranes, not only making respiration functionally impossible (or at the very least far less efficient), but also embolizing every living thing with the precipitated gases. Everything alive dies, immediately.
If those two gases aren't enough, it will probably also significantly change the dissociation constants of pretty much every ionic compound, making them far less likely to dissociate in water, effectively causing large portions of the salt in the sea and other dissolved solids to precipitate in a cloud of powdered solids that would make the banded iron formations of the great oxygenation event look like a child's sandbox.
Depending on the interrelation of water's own dissociation and the intermolecular forces, which I can't recall at the moment, all acids and bases may suddenly neutralise in a similar event.
No matter what, I don't think anyone would be worrying about swimmers not being able to break the surface of the water.
This is an excellent quote.