DeadFyre t1_jef75ud wrote

The formula for momentum (what determines the energy contained in a moving body) is P = MV, where P is momentum, M is mass, and V is velocity. In general, the speed at which human muscles can move does not change with the size of the human involved. Mass, however, does.

So, all other things being equal, such as fitness, nutrition, and technique, a man who is 30% bigger will produce a blow which has 30% more momentum. It's worth noting here that momentum also informs your ability to take a punch, for the exact same reason. You're 30% larger, and have bigger bones, muscles, etc, and you can better absorb the force transferred from the punch to you.


DeadFyre t1_je6a7as wrote

Because maintaining massive stone structures is expensive, and often nobody owns these buildings, and lacks the means to make the upkeep a paying proposition. When times are bad, and money scarce, people's romantic attachment to history very quickly goes by the board.


DeadFyre t1_jcmfb6d wrote

It's got nothing to do with ownership, it's a dogshit market. North Carolina is a college market, and it's just not that fun being a millionaire in North Carolina compared to Miami or Boston or New York or Los Angeles. Basketball is a city game and the people who get good at it usually grew up in cities, and want to live in cities. They can earn more money from appearance fees and endorsements while taking a lower salary in L.A. than being the main guy in Charlotte.

Also, the shittiest owner in the NBA is James Dolan, don't even play. The guy has the most profitable franchise in the league, it's in the biggest market in the country, and the his team is still perennially dogshit. The Knicks were still a contending club back in 1999 when he bought the team, but he's consistently run them into the ground with terrible management.


DeadFyre t1_jbq2o7s wrote

You have the right to defend yourself with "reasonable force" if you're attacked, so long as you have a legal right to be where you are. If you're shot at while trespassing and shoot back, the law won't protect you, but if you're driving your car on a public street? You completely have a right to fire back. Now, let's be clear, that's not an ideal circumstance, and may not even be tactically sound, he might have been better off just stomping on the gas and roaring down the street.

Reasonable force is going to depend on what the prosecutor, judge, and jury decide. This is why you're entitled to a trial by a jury of your peers. Now I'll disclaim here: Not a lawyer, don't know the law in Washington State, but shooting back is not inherently illegal.


DeadFyre t1_j96ze4y wrote

That's like comparing the rate at which wood rots to the rate at which it burns. Radioactive decay is the spontaneous decomposition of unstable atoms. Nuclear fission inside a reactor is a chain-reaction which causes the atoms to split, harnessing the exothermic products of the reaction to heat water and drive aturbine.

The U235 decay chain goes like this:

>Uranium-235 →Thorium-231 → Protactinium-231 →Actinium-227 →Thorium-227 →Radium-223 →Radon-219 →Polonium-215 →Lead-211 →Bismuth-211 →Thallium-207→ Lead-207 (stable)

The fission products of a nuclear reactor are far less predictable, but include isotopes of Iodine, Caesium, Strontium, Xenon, and Barium. That's because the neutrons which collide with the U235 nuclei crack them apart.


DeadFyre t1_j5vf8zs wrote

This is a very dubious strategy. What it does I is to concentrate ownership of fossil fuel industries in the hands of the most ruthlessly irresponsible people, because that's who's left when people who care about the environment divest.


DeadFyre t1_j1sabnq wrote

It's also my understanding that the Gauls had been particularly treacherous, with many erstwhile Gallic allies to the Romans luring the Romans in by asking for protective garrisons and then murdering them.


DeadFyre t1_j11mp5r wrote

You don't want to save Star Wars. I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm going to give you a Rian Johnson quote to explain why:

"You think you do, but you don't".

Now I don't mean you wanted the fetid slurry that he and his ilk have produced thus far. You didn't, and you don't. What I do mean, however, is that you don't actually want more Star Wars. The reason you don't want it, is that it's a complete product. Star Wars has told its story, and it's told all the stories that are peripheral to Star Wars. The only thing they can do now is just keep re-telling the same story, recycling the same themes and tropes, only not as good. And that's the best case scenario. The worst case is 'The Last Jedi', where they actively skullfuck your childhood memories, because that would be ORIGINAL.

What you do want, what I want, in all sincerity, is something new. You want a new monomyth, with new characters, and a new setting, and new, cool ideas, not a cynical, cowardly retread of better people's ideas.


DeadFyre t1_ixftkrq wrote

I'm perfectly aware of what technologies were pioneered in the Space Race. That was 60 years ago, and there's no reason to believe any of those technologies required a lunar mission to achieve. But that's not my principal objection. You want to fund scientific research, I am with you. You want to fund research into the physics necessary to unlock energy sources that can get us to an adjacent solar system, I am on board.

What we're doing is none of those things. We're re-using 1960's technology to go back to a place we've already been, and thence re-using 1960's technology to visit another planet in the solar system, and plant a flag and a plaque. That's IT. There's no payoff, no other objective, no practical payoff for the billions in taxpayer dollars and millions of tons of CO2 we'll be producing to carry of what can only be a P.R. stunt.

We don't have the technology to terraform Mars, or to even build a permanent settlement there. You want to colonize the solar system? Start by creating a self-sufficient settlement in Antarctica. Because that's about a hundred times more feasible than Mars. Prove you can do that, and then we'll talk.


DeadFyre t1_ixfsxn2 wrote

At present level of technology, it's certain to have no practical benefit. There is no habitable planet within the reach of our current propulation technology, nor within the THEORETICAL limits of any technology we have postulated. It's just not feasible. So, all that is left is an expensive P.R. stunt. If you'd take a second to research the matter yourself and use a little objectivity, you'd agree with me.


DeadFyre t1_ixem18q wrote

No, you can't. Whiners on the internet pay for the privilege of going onto the internet with their own money. They pay their ISP, and the platforms that cater to their whining earn money from sponsors, all without anyone being coerced into paying someone else.

If you want to DONATE to a space exploration plan, or volunteer time, I salute you. Enjoy it! Live your best life. But I would just assume not fund a manned mission to the Moon or Mars when there is no practical benefit to any human, save the small slice of contractors and government employees who will be paid money out of my taxes to do the damned thing.