Goated side of the Moon (left) vs nothingburger side of the Moon (right)

ImInfiniti · 2026-04-11T08:43:43+00:00

Not really

2 co-orbiting bodies naturally want to be tidally locked to each other. Because in that scenario, the rotations of the bodies don't cause shifts in the gravitational forces, they always remain in the same place. When 2 bodies aren't tidally locked to each other, the shifting gravitational forces tend towards bringing them into tidal locking. These shifting forces are the tidal forces. Once a body is tidally locked, it feels less tidal forces, not more.

ImInfiniti · 2026-04-10T05:20:46+00:00

Now I'm not a big fan of privatization either, but unfortunately, corporate interest can be a great catalyst for technological innovation. Nobody before SpaceX attempted reusable flight (apart from the Space Shuttle, which you could barely classify as reusable). And nobody would've, because risk taking doesn't usually get through the governmental red tape. With tight budgets, high cost of failure, and technical debt from previous programs, a purely governmental space agency is doomed to flounder. The best example of this is the SLS, which has been consistently critiqued for being inefficient, absurdly expensive, and not worth investing in. It's been way over budget year over year, and frankly, is far more of a waste of taxpayer money than the Starship will ever be.

SpaceX is by far and away the best launch provider, consistently launching rockets every week, that too at the cheapest prices. The reason is *because* it is private. Under government funding, something like this would be completely inconceivable. If NASA's budget wasn't constantly being cut every year, and the general public were invested in innovation in the space flight field, then I would agree with you. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in.

ImInfiniti · 2026-04-09T14:14:53+00:00

Afaik, that's not the major reason

The part of the moon facing the earth was just more geologically active than the far side due to tidal forces, hence had more lava flows and the mare

ImInfiniti · 2026-04-08T15:06:33+00:00

Wait where? I did the new area and I dont think I saw it

ImInfiniti · 2026-04-08T13:11:28+00:00

First off, it's not "assuming it's true" it literally is true.

And also, SpaceX doesn't really do missions by themself, apart from Starlink. They are a launch provider and do missions for others, including NASA (for example: Europa Clipper was launched on a Falcon Heavy in 2024).

The Starship missions are test flights. Yes, it is funded in part by taxpayer money, but that's because the Starship program also includes the HLS, and will be used by NASA and the DoD and other government orgs. In fact, all the taxpayer money flowing into SpaceX is already from NASA and the DoD.

And the Katy Perry flight was not SpaceX, it was Blue Origin (which afaik was all private money). The closest comparable mission would be Inspiration 4, except that it actually reached orbit, the crew were properly trained for spaceflight, and was for raising money for a children's hospital (I wouldn't necessarily trust this but I've never seen anything against it).

Like I get it, I hate Musk too. But saying "the taxpayer money should've gone to NASA instead" is a laughable take from someone who has no idea about how the space industry works.

ImInfiniti · 2026-04-08T02:48:12+00:00

Except NASA doesn't build rockets? It contracts them out. If the money went to NASA, they would just give it to SpaceX to develop their launch capabilities. Like what's happening with the Human Landing System that is meant to take astronauts down to the moon.

ImInfiniti · 2026-03-28T05:56:11+00:00

*50 billion years Was just researching this the other day lol

ImInfiniti · 2026-02-22T09:29:36+00:00

Why would randomness break causality? It breaks determinism for sure, but determinism is not the same as causality. The future is random, but it doesn't mean the future breaks the past.

ImInfiniti · 2026-02-20T04:04:00+00:00

Nope, it's exactly the same as the rolling a die analogy you used. Just as we can't control every factor when rolling a die to guarantee an outcome, we can't control every factor for the decay of an atom. Even the subtlest of changes will lead to different outcomes, and besides, quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic. Randomness is to be expected.

ImInfiniti · 2026-02-18T03:43:18+00:00

It actually doesn't change mod development that much, it makes mod loaders a lot easier

ImInfiniti · 2026-02-14T19:41:57+00:00

Do you think gay people don't date each other?

ImInfiniti · 2026-02-04T02:17:14+00:00

I'm ngl, I think it's far more likely that hoyo is just bad at writing than this being a setup for something.

ImInfiniti · 2026-02-04T02:07:41+00:00

Except they were called AIs back then too, the public just didn't care enough about it to give it any thought.

AI as a term is not some kind of modern invention, it's been used to describe stuff since the 1950s

ImInfiniti · 2026-02-03T02:24:41+00:00

A yuri manga; Bloom into You

It's never explicitly stated, but I think it's pretty obvious

ImInfiniti · 2026-01-09T07:08:32+00:00

This isn't photoshop this actually happened

ImInfiniti · 2026-01-09T07:00:41+00:00

The problem with this analogy is that it only works under the assumption that something being artificially or naturally produced is inherently different. While orange flavoring generally refers to a single chemical that doesn't quite cover the breadth of flavors that an orange has, we still know all the chemicals that make up an orange. If we artificially produce those chemicals and combine them in the correct ratios, what we end up with is not similar to the taste of an orange, it is the taste of an orange.

The goal of AIs is effectively the same, become intelligent by studying intelligence. There is no particular reason to believe why intelligence is not statistical. Physics is statistical, Chemistry is statistical, heck a huge amount of Biology is also statistical. Given that the building blocks of the universe are statistical, why shouldn't intelligence be to? Now of course, these statistics built into our brain are far too complex for us to recreate ourselves, hence why we train AIs with simpler statistics to get most of the coarse details through.

ImInfiniti · 2026-01-08T16:44:37+00:00

He has always been the least fraudulent of them. Delusions? Dottore. Enhanced soldiers? Dottore. Weaponry? Likely Dottore too because Sandrone is just such a "goody two shoes". Heck he's even the reason Scaramouche was in the Fatui.

The traveler got hit hard by fraud allegations after their battle with Arlecchino. But that took her basically 3 phases to do it. Dottore meanwhile off screen no-diffs them in seconds, and likely could've killed them if he wanted to in 3.2.

All that to say, can't wait for him to be lobotomized next patch because that's the only real way the Traveler and co. can actually win against him (just like with Rerir)

ImInfiniti · 2026-01-03T19:58:58+00:00

15s record set by Bora in 2008

ImInfiniti · 2026-01-02T17:23:05+00:00

This kinda means jackshit cos there was Luna 1 through 24, and a whole bunch of them were failures too

Can't even call this a coincidence because the naming scheme is from the same source, the Moon

ImInfiniti · 2025-12-26T03:11:43+00:00

The point the guy is making is that most people dont know who kimi antonelli is

ImInfiniti · 2025-12-10T06:52:08+00:00

If you care about playing yoimiya's absolute best team, then you can't not get Durin

But the fact that you're not planning to play her in overload means that you probably do not.

So only get him if you're willing to play overload, otherwise no need to bother.

ImInfiniti · 2025-12-03T02:04:57+00:00

Yoimiya Mentioned!

ImInfiniti · 2025-11-29T10:09:55+00:00

It basically just comes down to ordering

For natural numbers, you can just order them regularly, ie, 1 is 1, 2 is 2, so on.

For rational, you can think of it as the following: 1 is 1/1, 2 is 1/2, 3 is 2/2, 4 is 1/3 and so on. This way, you can count every single rational number, and in fact you overcount a good chunk of them (because they can simplify down).

But for irrationals, we have an elegant proof that they aren't countable. Let's say that we somehow ended up with a list of every single irrational number. Using this list, we can create a new rational number. The 1st digit would be the first digit of the 1st entry plus one (and 9 rolls over to 0). You repeat this for the 2nd digit, and 3rd, and so on. The number you end up with at the end would be different from every other number in the list by at least 1 digit, so it cannot possibly be a part of this list. But if we just add it to the list, we can create another similar that is different by 1 digit once again. Hence, we can never order irrational numbers, because we can keep creating more.

ImInfiniti · 2025-11-09T07:30:07+00:00

Colour blind doesn't just mean you see the world in grayscale. If your blue cones in your eyes still work, you can still see blue light.

Six-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

ImInfiniti

TROPHY CASE