_Jam_Solo_ t1_je2i8wc wrote

What's weird about the moon, is there is no atmosphere, so, it's like having no water for things to float in. Things that might normally float here, like water vapour, would just fall to the ground on the moon, and only float over whatever else happens to be down there from the explosion.

I'm not sure how useful your system would be though. I feel like the amount of time and energy you'd need to spend melting the regolith and collecting the gasses and whatnot, might be excessive in comparison to the amount of water you'd get. Also, I'd imagine you'd get different results from different impacts. Some impacts might be quite water rich, and others no water at all. But even the water rich ones, might not be rich enough for this to be a viable method of collecting enough water for anything.


_Jam_Solo_ t1_jdwdz64 wrote

I would say the comparison with resolution for audio is how high in pitch we can hear, how low, to what degree of precision we can tell how loud something is, like if you raise the volume of a sound in increments what's the smallest increment you could perceive. For audio this basically comes down to bitrate and samplerate, and we maxed those out a long time ago.

In so far as number of sounds, it's just after a while it becomes a mess.

Like, imagine waves in a pool. If you have one wave, you can see it easily. You could mix a number of waves and still be able to tell which is which. But after a while, the water would just be a mess of noise.

When you listen to a record, every element sounds distinct, and clear, because the engineers mixing the music made sure if did that. Even just a few elements can really start clouding over things and making them intelligible.

Just like if you have one person talking that's easy, 2 people taking you could go back and forth and you know they are distinct voices. After a certain number of voices, it becomes noise. If you have enough noise, you won't notice an extra voice being added.


_Jam_Solo_ t1_ja5lkfm wrote

There are of course multiple social medias, but an artist isn't only valuable of they are the preference of the masses.

Many great artists are the preference of niche groups. The internet reaches far and wide and bring these artists, these masters of their craft, to their fans all over the world. Whereas if they only exist locally, they may only come across a handful of people that enjoy their work, and their talents will go unnoticed and people that would love it will never experience it.


_Jam_Solo_ t1_ja56brr wrote

I get it you might not care, and that's fair. I think instagram was like that, but some social media should be geared towards a more global audience, and some should be more local.

Or instagram should allow the choice. I know a lot of people want to use instagram as a way of just connecting with Freund's and family, and they don't care about all the other shit. And that's fair.

But the artists need a way to connect with their fans.


_Jam_Solo_ t1_ja556z3 wrote

Not really. It really doesn't spread much at all, and who is even gonna see it in the first place?

Imagine some amazing artist or YouTuber, creates amazing content.

They post it, and they get 0 views. No hashtags or anything shows their content to anyone. How is word of mouth going to help that?

Although, granted, hashtags can be something you follow.