It’s just modeling humans. I was only a lab TA for two semesters, and I caught so many fake data sets.

I’m glad you asked. Mind if I ask you how old are you, and where are you from?

I’m hoping most of big tech and media get broken up

It’s just hope though.

It’s the same gas, and it is dangerous. Not as dangerous as actually inhaling smoke or cooking over a wood fire, but a bit dangerous.

All combustion products, including the ones that are created when you cook food on an electric stove, have a camp fire, or are passed by an ICE car are.

Natural gas does burn pretty cleanly. It does doesn’t burn completely into CO2 and water. Other stuff is created too.

💯🐴🔋(umm, staple)

I’ll warm up the probulator.

There should be no need to mention these limitations. They sold be obvious to people using them, and of course there are academic discussions of the limitations of every model. I think they’re just not being presented to you because they’re well known.

Anyone who uses models should know that all models are wrong, but some models are useful.

They all want access to the Chinese market.

This doesn’t appear to be anything new. Traffic engineers have been optimizing lights in large networks for decades.

They just have access to all the data they’ve been collecting on you, which is way more than the traffic meter cords can provide.

Who said anything about lying? Why is this place so toxic.

It’s marketing. They are telling you a story to sell products.

Unless you consider marketing lying, which I suppose is one possible interpretation…

Deciding to make or not make a product is not a simple thing. Lots of decisions are part of it.

They just don’t want to talk about it and want you to buy one of their other products.

What do you mean?

They don’t want to make a product. They say “consumers don’t like it”. You ask for evidence. They say it’s confidential, or they deliberately sabotage the availability of the product and say, “see?”

It’s standard marketing.

They say that all the time because it disposes of the issue without them needing to provide any evidence.

Oh. I hate it here. I’ll never be back. My wife is here for work and convinced me to fly out for a long weekend.

It’s awful. I don’t party or gamble or smoke or really do much but outdoor and educational, and I particularly hate people trying to extract more money from me.

I’m fine with paying what it costs, even if that’s a lot, but once I’ve paid, you don’t talk to me about money again.

Plus everyone’s smoking inside and smoking weed and driving and lower class than even Myrtle or Daytona Beach.

The airport was bad, then we realized that the Lyft driver ran up the meter on us by going the long, more trafficy way. I didn’t even know that was possible.

Plus I now am away from home without a pair of glasses and with a case of pinkeye (bilateral, which I’ve never had before) that I must’ve picked up at the optometrist on Wednesday. Plus I can’t seem to trick Google or this new kagi thing into telling me how common this is. It keeps telling me that optometrists can diagnose but not treat pinkeye in most jurisdictions. Of course it must be common.

👍. I like science.

You wouldn’t just drop mass along side you in space. It would just continue to float along beside you.

You definitely have to throw it behind you, like you said, but that’s what rockets do. They throw mass behind them to make them move forward. That’s a rocket.

When you throw mass behind you at one point in your orbit, you raise the height of your orbit on the opposite side of the orbited object (this is simplified).

So you’re basically right, it’s partially about the mass of the object, but it’s mostly the firing of the rocket.

You’ve got some pretty good intuition though. That’s basic orbital mechanics.

I intend to. Provided I don’t get trapped in the desert for days. We’re bringing extra food, water, and eclipse glasses to auction to the highest bidder, though.

We didn’t even plan this. The opportunity came up before I even knew that I could take a tour and see this.

That’s a pretty good answer. I was definitely overthinking it.

A little correction. They would be slingshotting around either Venus, Mercury, or both to lose energy.

Going around the sun is like just bouncing a perfectly elastic ball.

Close enough for this mental model, though.

Edit: in my own defense I am in Vegas doing minor Vegas things.

While I’d really rather be talking about orbital mechanics or some other geek shit, I do get to see an annular eclipse in totality in a beautiful national park. That’s certainly a once in a lifetime event.

deleted by creator

So, it doesn’t work the way you think.

It’s only going that fast because it’s near the sun. The same way a satellite close to Earth needs to move faster than one farther away. You can’t really use that velocity to go elsewhere. It had to lose a lot of energy to get as close to the sun as it is. It would need to gain that back to get to earth.

I’m really blanking on a way to explain this concisely and I can’t explain orbital mechanics in a Lemmy post.

If you play Kerbal space program, you can definitely use that to get a very intuitive understanding of this concept.

How old is your son? I imagine I’ll do the same, but this is the only magic trick that I’ve really wanted to learn. My son has some fine motor delays so he won’t be able to do this.

I realized that I’ve interacted with you a few times here, so I ended up looking at your comment history. We seem to share a lot of similar characteristics.

I noticed that you’re trans and had a Q&A. I’m cis-het and I missed that session. I hope that we’ll interact again. I want to understand T as well as I understand LGB. I just don’t know anyone T.