Tlaloc_Temporal

That scutoid (possibly all of them, I don’t know) is just a pentagonal prism with a corner cut off.

I think that’s part of the joke. Instead of the snappy punchline, there’s a long and tedious realistic answer that goen on long after the point has been made.

Not all apples, but many. Including Macintosh, which was found along a road and could never produce viable seeds. There were only three trees for like 30 years before people noticed that they tasted rather good. All Macintosh apples today are grafts of the one surviving tree.

Nope, all dirty fleshbag. I just like knowing things and hope others do too. :)

That old version “Gros Michel” is what artificial banana flavour is based on. Bananas used to taste like that. The newer “Cavendish” variety is firmer and lasts longer, but doesn’t have the same flavour. It seems like both are being wiped out by disease though, yay monoculture.

Cavendish seem to be especially vulnerable because they’re all clones. They don’t produce viable seeds, so they’re grafted to new plants.

If adding more lanes doesn’t fix traffic, removing lanes shouldn’t break traffic either.

Don’t worry, it will grow bright enough to fry Earth in only 300 million!

The difference here is that an artist has control over the medium. Every letter was put there with intent, every stroke carries meaning. Deciding not to do these things can also carry weight, and even the decision to let chaos decide is a choice.

GenAI isn’t that, it removes the creative process entirely. Sure, you can get creative with prompt engineering, but the resulting art is the prompt not the AI generation.

It doesn’t matter how much work you put into micromanaging an artist, a commission is not your art. Similarly, it doesn’t matter how intricate and elegant your prompt is, you did not generate the result.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to find a good shot of the docking adapters in nomal docking videos. Scott Manley has a bunch of good shots in this video, and I found this fantastic video showing the docking process in detail.

Or read the wiki on the International Docking System (IDS), or spacecraft docking systems in general.

Unfortunately, the IDS isn’t androgynous right now, the passive and active sides are slightly different. Androgyny is planned for a future version.

Flamingoes dance in large groups: https://youtu.be/QLV_K7DVeyU

More like this situation, some male Manakin birds dance in pairs: https://youtu.be/GZ2ieF2Kuek

That would be a neat tradition, to burn down the last seat of government. Maybe a little violent as a metaphor, but a fun spectacle!

I’ve seen sony phones, but I don’t trust sony either.

Opposite experience for me, wired headphones just work. Anywhere, anytime, any device, instantly, with zero maintenance. Bluetooth headphones can just run out of power, can’t be used while charging, rely on the shaky Bluetooth standard, and are frustrating to hookup (especially when switching between devices).

I tried some bluetooth headphones, but I’ve ended up using far crappier USB-C headphones far more often. Still means I can’t listen while the device is charging though. Maybe two USB-C ports on different sides would work. Then a phone could rest uprite while charging and rest in a dock!

Possibly held a friend’s phone.

So far, we haven’t seen a physical infinity in any part of the universe, so if our models produce a point of infinite anything, they’re probably wrong.

That definition means a planet has nothing to do with physical state, and everything to do with the proximity of your neighbors. We could promote the Moon to a planet by pushing it further away, or demote Earth from being a planet by slinging it a bit closer to it’s hungry uncle Jupiter. We could demote all planets by extinguishing the Sun! Then the entire system stops working and it’s all just asteroid or something.

That arbitrarily chosen definition doesn’t describe the object, only it’s place in the malleable hierarchy. With this, the title of planet tells us nothing about the object itself, except that it’s orbit is only dominated by a star.

Even worse, the IAU definition is extra arbitrary, as it only counts objects that orbit specifically the Sun, so the vast majority of bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium that don’t fuse hydrogen aren’t planets. They also play very lose with hydrostatic equilibrium, as Mercury isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium, yet is explicitly classified as a planet. And “clearing it’s orbit” is also rather indistinct, with no method to determine this is given. It’s up to argument if Neptune is a planet, as many plutoids intersect it’s orbit.

Even more worse, the barycentre of our solar system is sometimes outside of the sun! That means sometimes the Sun is co-orbiting with the rest of the solar system bodies, and therefore by this definition nothing is a planet! It’s a definition so arbitrary that it periodically stops existing!

I’m not just saying I disagree with the IAU here, but that their definitely is objectively poor, and poorly used. I agree that Pluto, Eris, Ceres, and many others should be in a different category from Jupiter, but make some categories that make sense, please!

Sounds like a sweat lodge. I don’t know how hot they get those normally.

Pluto and Charon orbit each other. The barycentre (the center of mass they both orbit) is far outside of Pluto. The Earth-Moon barycentre is still inside Earth, though this could be changed by moving the Moon further out.

Either way, Earth, the largest rocky planet, could be made into a moon by sending it to Jupiter, so I don’t think being a moon should disqualify a celestial body from being a planet.

There’s also plenty of classifications of plants based on form! Non-vascular plants, woody plants, herbaceous plants, algae and lichen…

Most of our “rocky” planets are pretty wet though. Mars is drying out, but Venus is caked with volatile chemicals and Earth is downright infected. Only Mercury is really barren, partly due to it’s small size. I could easily see three categories for gravitationally rounded bodies that can’t fuse hydrogen: Dry planets (usully smaller), Wet planets (usually larger), and Gaseous planets (gas giants).

Yeah, in MIB he has Agent K to play off of. MIB 3, where he’s the sole driver of the narrative, was a weak entry partly because of this.

He has plenty of good movies and is an objectively good actor, but I think his style needs to be used well, and i, Robot doesn’t quite hit it. Maybe if Dr. Calvin was a stronger character rather than a worrywort and source of romantic tension, I’d like his performance more.