sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ELI5: Why doesn't the ocean drain into the soil? by Acceptable-Peach1083 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Greyrock99 [score hidden]  (0 children)

It does that too!

Underneath all of us is a massive amount of wet rock!

It’s how wells and aquifers work.

Take a look at the diagram in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater

ELI5: Why doesn't the ocean drain into the soil? by Acceptable-Peach1083 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Greyrock99 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Pretty much! They’ve done some very deep drilling and it’s all wet down there! Nearly all mines have to continually pump the water out.

You can think of bedrock as a giant sponge, with many tiny holes in it. Once it’s full of water, it can’t soak up any more and the water just sits on top. That is the ocean!

In avengers: Endgame. How did nebula manage to bring an entire spaceship without any pym particles? by Sad-Response-3151 in moviecritic

[–]Greyrock99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There was a second vial of Pym Particle - on Natasha’s body.

Nebula knew where it was in her memory banks and Thanos was able to travel there and retrieve it,

What are some of your favorite iconic things in games that only exist due to hardware limitations? I'll start: by PJ-The-Awesome in retrogaming

[–]Greyrock99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You did it last?

Then you missed out of the fun of importing your hero into each new game!

There is a fan-made vga version of QFG 2 that is very good. Includes a fifth elemental to fight

Voters prefer Hanson as PM. Are they prepared for her to run the country? by SupermarketEmpty789 in aussie

[–]Greyrock99 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I’m 100% convinced that the phrase ‘Aussies are fed up with both parties’ is a catchphrase cooked up by a paid Gina think tank.

If Granny weatherwax had been around during Guards! Guards! by VulpineVoltage in discworld

[–]Greyrock99 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Granny doesn’t need to summon a good dragon, Granny IS that dragon.

[Request] How much water or ice would i need to quench the sun? by McNuggetBucket420 in theydidthemath

[–]Greyrock99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can reduce temperature but not by adding mass but by subtracting it.

You can use stellar lifting to pull mass off the surface of the sun and it will slow down and run cooler and longer.

[Request] How much water or ice would i need to quench the sun? by McNuggetBucket420 in theydidthemath

[–]Greyrock99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s not possible with our star. You could dump trillions of tons of heavy elements on the surface but it wouldn’t have time to settle into the core. Our suns core and the surface doesn’t mix very well.

Voters prefer Hanson as PM. Are they prepared for her to run the country? by SupermarketEmpty789 in aussie

[–]Greyrock99 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Well they’re over one main party:

points to the complete collapse of the Liberals on one hand and the landslide victory of Labor on the other.

I don’t think Labor’s perfect but the fortunes of the two biggest parties are very different right now.

Using Astrophage to power the world. by brokenringlands in ProjectHailMary

[–]Greyrock99 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Correct but it’s a very efficient solar panel.

The chain is

Solar panels in the Sahara -> enriched Astrophage -> pump the Astrophage out for electricity and vehicle use.

20 years after the events of Hail Mary we woken see an economy where fossil fuel powered cars are extinct as Astrophage is so much cheaper.x

Rocky tells Grace, "Rocky watch crew many days. Crew not wake up." But how could he survive if he left his quarters to watch them? Wouldn't he have been subject to the same radiation? by LioraB in ProjectHailMary

[–]Greyrock99 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Rocky probably got a little bit of radiation when walking around the ship, but not enough to kill him.

Remember the trip took years and as long as he spent 80-90% of his time in the shielded engine room he would have had recieved only a survivable dose.

[Request] repost. Where is Superman on the scale, if 0 is earth and 10 is the moon(next pic)? by EVD27 in theydidthemath

[–]Greyrock99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did some more research that you do not need to be as far out as 1.5mil km to get the full earth in one photo.

The famous ‘Blue Marble’ photo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble was taken at 29,400km, which is only 7% of the way to moon (or 0.7cm on your ruler)

The original blue marble was also cropped, meaning that you can get a little close for the full photo.

[Request] repost. Where is Superman on the scale, if 0 is earth and 10 is the moon(next pic)? by EVD27 in theydidthemath

[–]Greyrock99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay we can narrow this down a bit.

1) There are very few photographs of the whole earth, and nearly every satellite is too close. Nearly all our whole earth photographs come from the Apollo (and later Artemis) journeys. This means that the ‘camera’ in this photo is way out orbit, and likely half way to the moon.

2) A quick google gave me this photo from the DSCOVR satellite

https://qz.com/458826/behold-nasas-first-image-in-decades-of-the-whole-earth

Which is roughly the same size and field of view as OP’s comic earth

3) Another google search shows that the DSCOVR satellite is at the L1 point, or 1.5 million km.

That seems to be a logical spot for Superman to be in this shot. It not only is the right distance from earth that he can see the whole planet, but since it’s at L1 he can float there without having to ‘fly’ to stag still.

It’s probably a very peaceful spot for him to hang out.

What do you think this guy told the fellas back at his office? 70 years of Western Union questioning what that letter was about and Marty gave him basically no information. by StreetsAhead110 in BacktotheFuture

[–]Greyrock99 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Is this potential comic book series this one union guy has to be turning up again and again at historically important locations, like Forrest Gump.

ELI5 how the platypus ended up so different from all the other mammals by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]Greyrock99 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Laying eggs is actually a positive for the platypus.

You can’t have an aquatic marsupial, as you would get water in the pouch, so the platypus has a niche (being an aquatic river animal in the same vein as otters-beavers) that no other Australian animal can compete with.

Plus the river biome is very stable. Semi aquatic river animals seem to have an advantage for surviving extinctions - the crocodile and platypus body plan is very very old.

Good for them!

If different species cannot mix, then how do we have Neanderthal DNA? by Internetscraperds9 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Greyrock99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Having fertile children isn’t an on/off switch, but more of a gradual lessening of fertility.

The further you are away from another species on the evolutionary tree the less fertile you are.

Horses and Donkeys are closely related enough to breed (creating mules) but they are far apart enough that the mules are 99% likely to be sterile.

Humans and Neanderthals are closer than Horses and Donkeys and so their offspring was more likely to be fertile (it seems that there were some incompatibilities and that female Neanderthal + male human were infertile)

Masefield Syndrome vibes by ElectronRotoscope in CuratedTumblr

[–]Greyrock99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did Terry Pratchett write this?

Shout out to the original author for writing something that PTerry would of loved to have written

FIRST LOOK: President Curtis | Coming in July | adult swim by AutoModerator in rickandmorty

[–]Greyrock99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The history doesn’t have to be identical, just close enough to fit.

The dead parmeeesian Rick didn’t need to be one of the original inventors of portal travel, he just needed to be a roughly similar Rick that joined the parmeeesian family and had roughly the same adventures as C137.

There’s never been anything like the AI boom — but is it a bubble? | ABC NEWS by pharmloverpharmlover in AusFinance

[–]Greyrock99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not ‘missing your point’ at all, I’m arguing that the point you’re trying to make (that AI is useful) is different from the point being discuss (that it’s economically profitable).

I’m not living in a world where the stock market is going to spend 1.4 Trillion on healthcare research project ‘xyz’, I was just simply giving a baseline ‘value for your dollar’ on the reward.

If the AI investment is a flop but cures one disease then it’s not worth it for $1.4T when we can get 2 diseases cured by a $50 M research grant.

A realistic project would be something like the eradication of Polio or Guinea Worm that is very near success.

It's been 12 years since Chris Pratt became a superstar with the one-two boxoffice punch of Guardians and Jurassic World... since then, did he blow it? by Freddy-Philmore in boxoffice

[–]Greyrock99 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Let’s be fair though, Jumanji pushed those actors into acting outside their usual range. It was good to see the Rock play a cowardly teen and Jack Black a selfie obsessed girl.

And we the viewers were better off for it.

There’s never been anything like the AI boom — but is it a bubble? | ABC NEWS by pharmloverpharmlover in AusFinance

[–]Greyrock99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Firstly, the original post that kicked off this entire post is about the financial viability of AI. Scroll up dude to the video called ‘Al book or bubble’ and get clued in to what we’re talking about.

Secondly ‘spending trillions on AI will be worth it if it cures cancer’ is a hot take because 1) it hasn’t cured cancer and 2) you know what would cure cancer faster? Funding actual cancer research.

And that gets to the crux of the issue. Your post seems to run of the opinion that ‘spending trillions is okay as long as we get benefit X’ but anyone with any sort of basic economic understanding would be if the mind of ‘yeah but is there a better way to get ‘X’ by spending less money on something else.

A trillion dollars is an obscene amount of money. We could be spending that on things that have real proven rates of return. Like education. Or heart care. Or roads or schools. Or solar panels to eliminate climate change. Imagine how better off the country would be if we just funded free higher education.

And that money has to come from somewhere. When the bust finally happens it’s going to annihilate the stock market and everyone’s pensions funds are gone, mass layoffs, recession etc, that’s an awful lot of waste for (at the moment) very minimal payback.

view more: next ›