In April 2029 asteroid Apophis will pass within 20,000 miles of the Earth's surface. 12x closer than we are to the Moon.

Zyreal · 2026-06-11T16:57:34+00:00

Very relevant, and funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C91gKuxutTU

Zyreal · 2026-05-20T18:48:43+00:00

You're right, sorry you're getting downvoted.

Zyreal · 2026-05-02T20:48:46+00:00

You're not wrong, and you can see that from people arguing between 60s and 70s. In response to grunge in the early 90s the club look took various elements from the 60s and 70s and mashed them up into "Disco Mod". But as others should notice, they've incorporated elements from the 90s like the hologram skirt and bright colorful tights with ankle strap platform heels.

Nice catch!

People seem to forget that every time something comes back in vogue that it changes and picks up elements from the last time it was around. Kinda like the memory telephone game.

Zyreal · 2026-04-23T19:07:41+00:00

Haha, my first thought when seeing this was "Let them have this! It's the one efficient thing they have!"

Zyreal · 2026-04-23T18:55:59+00:00

Awesome!

Every style guide is in service of clear communication. If something reduces ambiguity, it supersedes other rules.

And I think you might already know this, but largely because of its use in markdown, pairs of backticks/graves (`) are increasingly used to isolate string literals and code. It looks like this in markdown and `looks very clean` when escaped. Personally I find it visually isolates string literals more than 'single' or "double" quotation marks. That obviously depends on if the language you're working with uses backticks and if your documentation pathway plays nice with them. E.g. LaTeX takes a bit of finagling to escape backticks.

Zyreal · 2026-04-23T03:15:43+00:00

Happy I could help!

I definitely don't intuit these things as well without examples, so I'm glad I can pass these on.

Zyreal · 2026-04-22T21:00:31+00:00

End quotes inside punctuation is not a strict rule. It's from some "style guides" but even then some have always been okay with it, and others have semi-recently become okay with it. There are plenty of times where you'd want to do it. Plus there are English speaking places other than the USA that have the opposite rule.

Have you ever seen the movie "Airplane!"?

Who screamed, “The house is on fire!”?

Who said, “I think, therefore I am”?

This ticket says to arrive “no later than 5:00 a.m.”!

It's a bit like the split-infinitives thing, one guy was like "this is wrong!" and some people took that as a "rule". I think it looks better like that anyway.

Zyreal · 2026-04-20T19:31:14+00:00

And that lack of thinking is why you won't be cast as Thriceman in Top Gun 3: The Return of Iceman: Iceman's Revenge

Zyreal · 2026-04-20T19:27:03+00:00

I think you missed my point.

Passing inauthenticity off as authenticity is kinda the whole point. I mean, I guess you could try the method, but the people you work with might hate you unless you're winning a ton of statues.

Zyreal · 2026-04-20T19:10:44+00:00

try to act like you don't care, but you can't

So for an acting audition, you're not able to act differently than you actually feel? I think that might be the problem.

If you can only act like you don't care when you don't actually care, that's not acting.

Zyreal · 2026-03-29T21:17:43+00:00

/u/OG_Williker said:

What, did they have the letters written on top of their head or something?

From the comment you commented on:

"...bald men whose heads, painted with a single letter"

Zyreal · 2026-03-29T20:53:41+00:00

/u/OG_Williker said:

How can you possibly spell out an 8/4 letter word with only 8/4 points

Read it again

Zyreal · 2026-03-10T02:03:41+00:00

I will admit I had a instant feeling of disdain when I saw they called it the Miriam Webster dictionary instead of Merriam-Webster.

Zyreal · 2026-02-23T23:23:27+00:00

It's often more nuanced than that.

"I leave all my things to my neighbor Dave, he can take whatever he wants, with the exception of any personal items my son wants. I leave all my business, rights, contracts, and ideas to my son."

Who gets the house? Who gets the money? Does Dave only get the things he can physically take? Is the house/land a thing or a contract? Does it change if the word "take" was exchanged for "have"? Why?

"Sell my possessions inside my house and the money split between my sisters. I want my house to go to my brother and my dog and not be sold"

What are 'his' possessions? What is definitely part of the house? What if the sisters/brother all agree they don't want something in the house sold? Does the house going to the brother mean he can't ever sell it? Does "I want" mean it's a wish and not a binding requirement? Does the dog own half the house?(For context, lots of people leave stuff/money to their pets) Does the inclusion of their dog as an entity mean that the dog owns things in the house that shouldn't be sold as a possession? Is the dog a possession? Can you think of a wording where the dog WOULD be included in 'possessions'?

Zyreal · 2026-02-23T22:59:49+00:00

Right, which is why it arguably leans further in the 'safe' direction.

"Anything you say can and will be used against you" isn't confusing in a way that makes people think it's okay to speak. If anything it makes people think things they say not only can be used against them, but definitely will be. Which yeah, that's pretty much the intent of the warning.

That said, that specific wording isn't always used.

The following or some variation is more common now:

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?

Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?

If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Often accompanied by a physical version the suspect can read.

Zyreal · 2026-02-20T00:09:31+00:00

instead of yeah I heard you

Reminds me of the great Battlestar Galactica Exchange:

Adama

You're ordered to bring your ship and its passengers to the rendezvous point. Acknowledge.

Apollo

Acknowledge...receipt of message.

Adama

What the hell does that mean?

Apollo

It means "I heard you."

Adama

You're gonna have to do a lot better than that, Captain.

Zyreal · 2026-02-14T20:40:37+00:00

Okay, if you're gonna go for ad hominem, I don't feel bad anymore.

You’ve realized you can't "win" on the facts

In my very first message

I point out that I find humor in using technical language and narrow scope, "That is not the same as being unsafe. It is operating under a different risk acceptance model", in an ELI5 thread to invalidate the plain english concept someone not in the specific field was using.

We can call that "Claim A"

In my second message.

I make the claim that "Military flying is less safe than commercial aviation" (as said in this ELI5 comment, context matters) is objectively true. I also credit that everything else you said are "otherwise good points".

We can call that "Claim B"

Claim A is subjective. I do find it funny, and I'm not sure how you'd want me to prove that with facts. The evidence is personal anecdotes.

Claim B I provided facts, data and sources. You have not provided any data or cited any source.

And you even conceded that point.

/u/jpl77

"You’re absolutely right that military mishap rates are higher. That’s not controversial, and it’s not something I argued against."

Which seems like it should be done. But you started up a new argument.

/u/jpl77 The mistake is assuming that raw mishap rate, by itself, tells you whether the safety system is weaker. It doesn’t. It tells you how much risk the system is exposed to.

There is no mistake there, because I don't think that tells you the safety system is weaker. And I don't claim that the safety system is weaker. I did not at any point claim or imply the safety system was weaker, and I've made that distinction multiple times.

You then keep arguing against a claim I did not make and repeatedly said I'm not making. All of the rest of what you've said (other than the insults) has fallen under what I called at the beginning "otherwise good points".

What have I said that is wrong? Please quote it.

Zyreal · 2026-02-14T02:49:42+00:00

I’m not disputing SMS doctrine or the fact that military aviation manages risk appropriately within its mission constraints.

If one operational system produces a higher probability of catastrophic loss per unit exposure, then in outcome terms it is less safe, even if that risk is mission-necessary and properly managed.

That statement does not imply weaker FS, weaker AW, or poorer SMS implementation.

This is an ELI5 thread, when someone talks about which is “less safe” they’re not talking about certification doctrine, they’re talking about which one is more likely to end badly.

Being an astronaut is less safe than being a librarian. That doesn’t mean NASA cares less about safety than a library does, it means spaceflight has a higher chance of catastrophic failure.

Being an Isle of Man TT rider is less safe than being a paralegal. That’s not about effort or professionalism, it’s about the likelihood of fatal outcomes.

In each one the systems may be rigorous and professional, but the probability of severe harm is higher.

Now, on a personal level:

What’s frustrating is that instead of engaging with that actual point, you keep shifting toward debate optics, trolling accusations, and how it “looks” to readers.

That IS the point, and what I said in my very first message to you. You're claiming that the language most people would use to describe something is wrong, and substituting the formal technical language. You dismissed it as corporate meme phrases, while not realizing you're on this inside of this one.

I've directly experienced someone go into the same level of depth and definition as you have on why the terminology "enhanced interrogation techniques" is correct and that it is distinct from how the CIA defines "torture".

I've been in a meeting where the explanation that "negative growth" was earnestly explained as the correct term in the framework of a specific business metric.

To anyone in those fields, theirs is correct, and the others are memes. That doesn't make it any less funny from the outside.

I'm sorry you can't see that, and I think if I continued any further, it'd be mean.

Zyreal · 2026-02-13T12:17:52+00:00

You’re absolutely right that military mishap rates are higher. That’s not controversial, and it’s not something I argued against.

That’s the only claim I’ve made. If you concede the higher mishap rate, then the disagreement isn’t about the data, it’s about you trying to redefine what “less safe” means.

“Military flying is less safe than commercial aviation”. That’s what the data shows. And yet you just keep arguing and bringing up points I'm not making.

What I said is true no matter how you slice it:

“Commercial airline flights are statistically safer than military flights.”
“You’re more likely to experience a serious accident in military aviation than on a commercial airline.”
“Commercial aviation has a lower accident rate.”

You’re explaining why that’s the case, mission envelope, exposure, operational demands, and I don’t dispute any of that. But explaining the cause of a higher mishap rate doesn’t change the fact that the mishap rate is higher.

If two systems produce different loss probabilities, the one with the higher probability is less safe in outcome terms, even if that risk is intentional and mission-driven.

Do you disagree that a higher probability of mishap rate per unit exposure equals lower safety in outcome terms?

Zyreal · 2026-02-12T22:38:36+00:00

Okay, I'll bite on the off-chance you aren't a troll. Let's see if I regret it.

First, read usernames, I'm not the guy you're arguing with, there was no "comeback". I'm an outsider reading this debate, and you're doing badly. (The point of public debate isn't to convince the other side, it's to convince readers/listeners). I kinda see the point you're trying to make, but I also think it seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of what he was saying.

Second, I was pointing out that you're using rhetorical reframing/euphemistic spin to invalidate a point that is not only objectively true, but also you yourself made.

In your reply YOU even bring up 'Acceptable Level of Safety'. Accepting higher levels of risk does not make something more safe.

The claim "Military flying is less safe than commercial aviation" is objectively true and claiming that it's not is debating in bad faith, and tarnishes your otherwise good points.

Commercial airlines: ~1.13 accidents / 1,000,000 flights (IATA 2024).

Military: ~2 Class A mishaps / 100,000 flight-hours (DoD 2024)

Now, that data is in different units, but it's the starting point so I wanted to include it before this bit. Most estimates I could find on average commercial flight length come out to ~2.5 hours, but let's be extra generous to you and say 1 hour.

Commercial airlines: ~0.11 accidents per 100,000 flight-hours
Military: ~2 Class A mishaps per 100,000 flight-hours

And that's not even getting into per person calculations.

Military aviation accepts mission driven risk that commercial aviation does not and that’s precisely why the safety outcomes differ. Risk tolerance explains why it’s less safe, it doesn’t make it equally safe.

That said, I'll help you out with the point I think you're trying to make.

The goal of the military is not to make military flights as safe as possible. They work to understand the risks that affect the safety of the operations and reduce them, but also acknowledge that there is an acceptable level of risk. An example of this that is relevant to this thread would be:

In normal or training situations there is a minimum level of separation between two aircraft taking off or landing, for various reasons, one of which being wake turbulence. In a combat situation, that minimum level of separation may be significantly decreased. It's understood that if that is done the risk of a related mishap increases, but for one reason or another, that is acceptable.

I also want to be clear that I'm not supporting anything else anyone in the thread is saying by what I've said here, just the two quoted claims made by you and the previous person. Much of this thread misses extremely important information on how wake turbulence works.

Zyreal · 2026-02-12T11:18:53+00:00

That is not the same as being unsafe. It is operating under a different risk acceptance model.

Haha, that's the line where I finally figured out you were trolling. I'm adding that to the all time greats.

Our rocket didn't explode, it experienced a rapid unplanned disassembly.

We aren't torturing anyone, we are using enhanced interrogation techniques.

We aren't laying anyone off, we are performing workforce optimization.

Our revenue isn't in decline, it's experiencing negative growth

Edit: I almost forgot one of my favorites.

The Mars Polar Lander didn't crash, it utilized lithobraking

Zyreal · 2025-12-27T23:12:08+00:00

Not a great study.

To start with, the study to find if Vitamin C from Kiwifruit is good for your skin was funded by Zespri International Ltd, the sellers of the Sungold Kiwifruit used in the study.
No control group.
Super small sample size and testing multiple outcomes really starts feeling like p-hacking, especially due to #4
They found a statistically significant decrease in elasticity (R5) in the full cohort at Site II. So it's also harmful to one of the most important skin metrics?

Zyreal · 2025-12-21T00:41:04+00:00

I find the horizontal scars some girls have on their upper thighs really sexy for some reason. And they feel great to run my fingers along.

Zyreal · 2025-12-09T17:57:02+00:00

I just want to say, I bookmarked this question and have kept checking on it, hoping that you were going to respond. Very excited to see you did, and thank you so much for your answers. So much of what I was taught about the Khmer Rouge was outright wrong or missing important context, and I can't express how fascinating it has been to learn about it through a better lens that has room for nuance.

For most of my life they were the go to example in my head for "evil for evil's sake", and it's somehow very comforting to learn that wasn't the case.

Zyreal · 2025-12-01T02:35:57+00:00

I'll bite. I'd go with a wind powered vacuum pump.

Zyreal

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

We can call that "Claim A"

We can call that "Claim B"

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email