Tlaloc_Temporal

That’s not “litterally” how it works then, just “figuratively”.

In general, I agree, but spin is quite surprising in how much like angular momentum and dynamos it behaves. Either way, we don’t know enough about it yet, and it’s at best a coincidence.

And that’s why replacing coal with fission is a massive step forwards!

Yes, ion thrusters still use conservation of momentum to generate thrust. They aren’t limited by how fast or how hot we can make something explode though, so we can shove way more energy into the stuff they’re throwing out the back. They’re basically tiny coil/railguns, using electricity to move individual ions really fast.

In terms of efficiency, Ion thrusters are 4 to 40 times better than liquid fueled rockets. The draw back is that ion engines make very little thrust for the mass of the engine.

Coral trees are make of rock wood and each leaf is it’s own organism.

Chromodynamics uses colour to represent the three charges of the strong field, like + and - for the one charge of the electromagnetic field. It rarely interacts with actually visible light.

The Feynman diagrams? I think those just represent terms in a statistical integral. It’s a nice way of describing an otherwise horrendously arcane function.

Hopefully they keep the repairability, unlike Apple.

It’s older than genAI by at least a decade.

I’m pointing out flaws in your reasoning. Bulbous and small aren’t good categories, especially when you recognized that raspberries are different.

I would contest that the nature of a cultural berry is being a small sweet fruit that typically wants to be eaten. Strawberries sit alongside gooseberries, raspberries, cherries, and all the other traditional berries in this. Strawberries are certainly unique in their structure, but that doesn’t change how we eat them.

The botanical berry definition has little to do with the cultural definition besides taking the name. Try looking at the botanical definition of tree sometime. Does Bamboo count? Palm trees? Ginkgo? It’s a strategy for than a rigid group.

“Dark” here apparently means “unsern” or “hidden”, but it’s incredibly confusing.

Bayberries/waxberries aren’t really smootth, and Yewberries aren’t very bulbous.

Haskap berries are lumpy and mealy, are they not berries?

Do groundcherries count with their paper husk? Tomatillos? Cherry Tomatos?

Are cherries berries? Rose hips?

Cherry chili peppers are bulbous and smooth, are they berries?

Raspberries and blackberries often have little hairs growing off of each fruit, does that mean they’re not smooth? If hair is ok, kiwifruit are bulbous, but hariy.

True, we can optimize the cycles more. Like double expansion piston engines, or that crazy proposal for a hydrid steam-mercury super high pressure power plant.

I’ll believe it when I see it. They have so many material science challenges ahead of them and aren’t very forthcoming with progress.

Unfortunately, there’s no way to get energy out of waste heat that won’t be spent pushing that heat a little harder. Already a significant amount of energy is spent cooling data centers, any attempts at energy recapture will just make that cooling harder.

The best we can do is something like district heating, because heat pumps can get over 100% effective efficiency.

I think more important would be non-chaotic answers. It doesn’t matter too much if their not identical if the content is roughly the same. But if you can get significantly different answers from trivial changes in prompt wording, that really does break things.

Still doesn’t mean it’s correct though.

200+ dwarf planet candidates. Lots of them have very low densities, and most are too far away to know hardly anything about them. Pluto was only confirmed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium with New Horizons, and Quaoar has a Dwarf Planet name, but probably isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium.

It’s not the specific bodies I’m worried about, it’s a useful idea of a planet. Finding dozens or hundreds more of them should be exciting, not a reason to throw up our hands and disqualify them.

I think “Planet” should be a gravitationally rounded mass that’s not a star anyway. Those can be divided into rocky and gaseous, and further divided by principal composition.

Smaller than that isn’t usually worth having a name, but moons can be just as interesting as free orbiting planets.

The distinction between minor and major planets is decently clear in our star system, but if we define it poorly it won’t help us understand other systems or why the major ones are important. It’s definitely not enough to disqualify minor planets from being full planets though. Go ahead and declare 8 major planets arbitrarily, but don’t try to justify ignoring the other few dozen planetoids poorly.

Of course it would be a .ml community…

Memory leaks are often difficult to deal with, and many contemporary languages basically encourage them. I know many applications that suffer significant performance issues due to memory leaks, and way too many that simply don’t care about memory footprint.

A language that treats memory management differently from the start makes all these problems much easier to deal with, if they appear at all. The real question is if the other costs of using the language are worth the somewhat niche performance gains.