AeternusDoleo t1_jedrplj wrote

Reply to Shipping by Snoo_26799

Does the sheep on a ship shipped by a shippingsheep shipped on a ship get shipped to a shop to shop for a ship to be shipped on by a shippingshipsheep?


AeternusDoleo t1_je4ha90 wrote

Fertilizer, yes ('though limited, as the natural river delta and drained peat bogs that make up the bulk of our nation tend to be fertile ground). Pesticides not so much.

Fertilizer production (from livestock industries), use and the nitrate emissions it causes are a major source of controversy in our nation at the moment.


AeternusDoleo t1_j9f11n8 wrote

Ah, yes, blame it on those evil evil conservatives. While the companies that are developing this tech are throwing their funding at the "other" side. "Here, be distracted by shiney thing, don't look at us taking away your future, shiney thing over here is where you need to look to!"

That said, you're not wrong about this being a digital revolution akin to the industrial one. ChatGPT and similar systems will wipe out entire sections of the services sector. Call centers especially. When paired with VR they also have a chance to wipe out large sections of the entertainment industry, both gaming and movie wise. What it won't wipe out however are blue collar jobs, since chatbots do not have an option to manipulate the environment.


AeternusDoleo t1_j1d635j wrote

There would be a danger of a localized kaboom, once the plasma loses containment it disperses - explosively. But I'm going to assume the amount of fuel in the reactor is going to be minimal, after all you're after a controlled fusion reaction. Once the fuel is spent or the pressure/temperature is too low to sustain fusion, the reaction ends.


AeternusDoleo t1_ixz93mv wrote

Is the fact that the nebula is blue at the bottom but not at the top due to the material being blueshifted? IE are we seeing matter being ejected from the protostar at a decent fraction of light speed?


AeternusDoleo t1_ixqvdcn wrote

Sadly, that's a little heavy on the severity of a claim, and a little low on the backing up of that claim. Not to say that I don't expect the major powers to have space based satellite interception at the very least by now. That recent "secret military" payload on the Falcon Heavy for example... wouldn't be surprised if that was something like that.


AeternusDoleo t1_iwc6ggc wrote

Interesting, but I am curious if this person understands the gravity of what he is trying to censor here. For it goes well beyond video games:

>Perhaps you—dear reader—are still not convinced. I ask you, then, to try this experiment at home. The experiment comes in two stages. Stage One: Take a photograph of someone you love and stab the eyes out. Are you hesitant to do it? Does it make you feel uneasy? Are you unwilling to stab out the eyes? Remember, it’s just a glossy piece of paper. If you can stab the eyes out, then you can move on to Stage Two: leave the maimed photograph in a place where your loved one will find it. When they find it, give them a lecture on the metaphysical status of images and why your actions didn’t mean anything because photographs lack moral status.

The first act is just the destruction of a photo. Not a big deal, you can print more. The second part is a statement, no longer part of a virtual environment, no longer part of just your own perception. It is a deliberate statement to others who will observe this.

By this argument, video game violence is more morally justified then watching a violent movie or even watching the news on TV. Because a video game remains local to your own perception. You choose the violence, if any, and aside from a multiplayer game (which face it, participants consent to the application of violence to themselves and others in), rather then to have it pushed upon you by the media you may only observe.

But would this professor call for the censorship of news and TV series? I rather doubt it.


AeternusDoleo t1_itzemuc wrote

Terminal velocity is the speed at which gravity and atmospheric friction cancel each other out. So if an object enters the atmosphere faster then terminal velocity, earths gravity will not be able to speed up the object enough to prevent the atmosphere from slowing it down. As a result, the object would lose speed - until it either disintegrates from the heat of atmospheric friction, surface impact ('though technically that makes its speed zero) or it's speed being equal to terminal velocity.