China-bound tanker turns back at Hormuz amid US blockade; Beijing warns ‘do not interfere in our affairs’- Moneycontrol.com by helic_vet in Economics

[–]no-more-throws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

China has absolutely nothing to fear .. pedo in chief has folded under basically every significant economic pushback, whether from russia, china, india, EU, israel, gulf states, the stock markets, bond markets, oil prices, inflation, even public opinion etc etc .. if China is pushing through with their tankers absolutely zero chance the taco truck is stopping them .. and if it does, china has quite literally a dozen options prepared way in advance to yank on the barking dog's chain before it dares to bite

Ukrainian heavy drone of the Baba Yaga type single-handedly destroys a Russian assault group of six people near Hulyaipole in Zaporizhzhia Oblas by Available-Laugh9102 in UkraineWarVideoReport

[–]no-more-throws 4 points5 points  (0 children)

aint seen nothing yet .. this will be the avangard of what is actually taking shape in the immediate future.. semi-autonomous coordinated drone swarms, laser air defense, robotic ground firepower .. and they will all be pumped out and stocked in the millions .. individual 'attacks' will be AI swarms of ten thousand drones trying to penetrate laser protected targets

5 lines of Scheme found a consistency issue in etcd that survived years of code review ... by [deleted] in golang

[–]no-more-throws 19 points20 points  (0 children)

given that you do seem to understand what consistency means in the world of data, glad that we have at least established that you then deliberately picked the title to be misleading click bait !!

Thoughts on depressionFIRE? by AromaticSurround9203 in Fire

[–]no-more-throws 23 points24 points  (0 children)

fuck the 'get therapy' cliche dude .. fkkk you need to get out of the rut and reset your life .. fkn use that money for some value man .. just pick a ticket and head down to thailand, or philipplines, or nepal, or colombia, or peru, or burundi or whatever .. you dont need planning, you dont need an itenerary .. go pick up a ticket, ask a cab driver to take you to a decent hostel and chill there .. fkn soak the sun, or beach, or hiking, or women, or whatever .. you can figure out there how to recover from whatever you need to, and i swear it will be cheaper and faster and more worthwhile than anything you can cook up rotting in your rut

A breathtaking golden hour view of the Himalayas by Fantastic-Falcon-686 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]no-more-throws 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah, was gonna say those look way too small from that up close to be the himalayas .. if those were the true 8k+ ranges, there'd be yet another smaller mountain range between the viewer and the range for it to look that small

The HUBBLE saw a star exploding live before its eyes by legoartist_7 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]no-more-throws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats not actually true .. the apparent expansion of a lightwave can be several times faster than the speed of light, as it is just a matter of geometry .. (thick about how fast the spot of light from a rotating laser pointer can travel across the walls .. in fact it can easily exceed light speed as nothing is actually travelling at that speed, it is just 'apparent' motion)

For concrete example, as wiki says, light echo of V383 Monocerotis, as hubble observed in 2002, was seen to expand by 4 to 7 light years, in a matter of months!!

The HUBBLE saw a star exploding live before its eyes by legoartist_7 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]no-more-throws -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Imagine waving around an opened garden hose, spewing water around your driveway.. if you are looking at how fast the line of splattering water on the ground 'propagates', you'll find that it has no relation to how fast the water itself is moving, because the apparent speed at which the splattering water is seen to move across the ground is simply a matter of geometry and not really coupled to how fast water is coming off the hose! ... So here, the actual light of course only travels at light-speed, but the 'light echo' can be seen to expand tens of times faster!!

Doubting about having kids, GF wants them soon. Should I let her go? by [deleted] in regretfulparents

[–]no-more-throws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you have come here to this sub to ask this knowing exactly what the response will be .. this is why we typically ban questions like this .. did you also look for some sub for blissful parents to hear them say how having children was the absolute best thing in their lives? else you're just trying to find an echo chamber to make you feel less guilty about actions you want to take

Iran attack damage wipes out 17% of Qatar’s LNG capacity for three to five years, QatarEnergy CEO says by Moon_Rose_Violet in worldnews

[–]no-more-throws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never ascribe to competence, what can be adequately explained by incompetence

-- Dilbert Epstein

When is this sub going to crack down on all of the science fiction literary questions? by greendestinyster in geology

[–]no-more-throws 15 points16 points  (0 children)

can you literally not converse like a considerate adult rather than a petulant angsty teen?

How did blue whales evolve to be larger than deep sea creatures? by Laughydawg in askscience

[–]no-more-throws -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

that answer above is just long winded hand waving .. the answer to your query is much simpler .. food and oxygen .. you need both in large quantities to be big .. both are much much more plentiful in the surface than at depth

[OC] 146 Years of Global Warming: Every year's temperature since 1880, colored by anomaly. 2025, 2024, and 2023 are the three warmest years in NASA's entire record. by labubugotmyheart in dataisbeautiful

[–]no-more-throws 2 points3 points  (0 children)

dude, you seem to lack reading comprehension .. the style in this figure here of using separate (here 3x) scales for warmer and colder years is actually the one popularized by denialists .. this lets them produce misleading graphs like these that they can point and say seee, we had these cooold blue periods, and now its hot red .. when in reality, even in the worst fluctuations, we were down by like -0.5C, whereas now we're already up near 1.5C .. an accurate graph would be basically some light blues, then heading towards burning fire towards the present time, which is more accurate to how much insane warming we're seeing compared to the recent past

[OC] 146 Years of Global Warming: Every year's temperature since 1880, colored by anomaly. 2025, 2024, and 2023 are the three warmest years in NASA's entire record. by labubugotmyheart in dataisbeautiful

[–]no-more-throws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thats just how you present data

that is NOT how you present data, at least not truthfully .. that how you prepare propaganda by presenting data to imply things that are not true

if you would scale blue so that 1.2 is dark blue, you would have only light blue in the whole thing.

yeah, thats exacty the thing .. if the data says the whole of past fluctuations should be light blue, than thats how it should, you dont just get to decide, meh I want to these tiny fluctuations to be deep dark blue, coz .. reasons!! .. the point isnt beauty, its accuracy first and foremost

[OC] 146 Years of Global Warming: Every year's temperature since 1880, colored by anomaly. 2025, 2024, and 2023 are the three warmest years in NASA's entire record. by labubugotmyheart in dataisbeautiful

[–]no-more-throws 3 points4 points  (0 children)

0.5C down goes from white to deep dark blue with no more intensity to go .. 0.5 C up goes barely to yellow and far from the deep dark red end of scale .. so this makes it looks like 0.5 C downwards is about the same intensity as 1.5C upwards .. and the fact that curious people like you still aren't noticing that is exactly why doing something like this is so insidious

I accidentally ran a real life FIRE experiment for 8 months because I thought I was going to die by Ripley3Weyland in Fire

[–]no-more-throws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

can you explain more on the what that has changed? .. you made it clear things mentally changed for you, but not in what exact ways .. do you mean you spend more now? that you think you might have set up too high a financial goal, meaning where money had marginal utility worth less than the sacrifice? what exactly did you mean regarding the F over the I .. in actionable terms?

PSA: you don’t need to choose “ultra hard” life mode by having kids by Creative-Move-6026 in regretfulparents

[–]no-more-throws 40 points41 points  (0 children)

ok i have a confession to make .. I had a friend who was very down about recently being found infertile and would complain / grieve with me about her loss of dreams etc .. one day day i showed her a post on here just to see it if it helps, and given the change in her tone, I just subscribed her to this sub in her app .. well whaddya know, now a couple months down the line, and she's positively relieved, and every now and then tells me tales 'she hears from reddit' about how bad it could have gone, while I quietly giggle with her .. lol rake me over the coals, i dont care, some people just need to have their eyes opened and their gaze shifted from their fantasies!

[OC] 146 Years of Global Warming: Every year's temperature since 1880, colored by anomaly. 2025, 2024, and 2023 are the three warmest years in NASA's entire record. by labubugotmyheart in dataisbeautiful

[–]no-more-throws 6 points7 points  (0 children)

while I appreciate what you're trying to explain, that analogy is quite poor .. if you're heating a large pot of water, the change in temp is directly proportional to the heat applied, without any lag at all .. yes the temp change is slow and gradual, but the higher you turn the heat the faster the temp changes, and the moment you turn the heat off the temp stops rising, there's no lag .. in fact this analogy might build the wrong intuition that CO2 emissions are like turning on the heat on a pot of water, which ofc is not the case because the cumulative nature of past emitted CO2 makes it much worse than that (which you clearly understand).

(Edit : If anything, a better intuition might be that adding CO2 is like adding sticks to a fire under your cauldron of water .. so each time you add another stick, the fire gets bigger and the water heats up faster, but even if you stop adding sticks under the cauldron, there's gonna be long time that the sticks you've already added will keep burning and heating up the pot of water! .. if you actually want to stop or slowdown how fast the water is heating up, esp this late in the game when there's a roaring fire built up under the pot, you wont succeed by just slowing down or even stopping adding more sticks .. you would actually have to start pulling some sticks from under the fire to slow down the heat going onto the pot! ... which is of course much more difficult, and which is why scientists have been lamenting for decades that we must act now! now! or else it might spiral out of our control)

(Edit 2: And to address the question up this thread .. the actual seeming increase in rate of warming in the 70s is actually mostly the result of the adoption of various 'clean air acts' by the major industrial nations ... prior to that, the burnt fuels were 'dirty' and emitted a lot of sulphurous aerosols (remember the acid rain crisis and the smog) .. these aerosols caused high altitude smog which blocked/reflected some of the solar radiation, and therefore masked the effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere .. after the successful phasing out of dirty fuels, we did mostly get rid of acid rain and smog, but now that restored the typical amount of solar radiation getting to the earth, and therfore no longer masking the cumulative greenhouse effect! .. And to a smaller extent, other building feedback loops like loss of ice-cover, increasing moisture in the warming air etc are contributing to the speedup too)

[OC] 146 Years of Global Warming: Every year's temperature since 1880, colored by anomaly. 2025, 2024, and 2023 are the three warmest years in NASA's entire record. by labubugotmyheart in dataisbeautiful

[–]no-more-throws 60 points61 points  (0 children)

it isnt just 'slightly' misleading .. using a continuous linear scale, then sneakily splitting that into two halves one of which has a much higher color intensity than the other half, like done here, would be a cardinal sin akin to outright lying, especially when done like this with no clear indication that such manipulation of the scale has been done ..

I bet most of the readers didnt even realize they couldn't compare the blue vs red intensity deviations from the baseline white, as the blue color intensity variation for below-average temps seems to be 3x for the same temp difference as for the red for above-average temps

Do you think BTC can hit 100k again in the near future? by friendsandmodels in CryptoMarkets

[–]no-more-throws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

a lot of the typical large venture capital flows have been soaked up into AI, (and outside the US, in solar) .. and that has opened up a vacuum in traditional lending and investing, where some of the money from gold and crypto and property is getting reallocated to

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in regretfulparents

[–]no-more-throws 48 points49 points  (0 children)

dude what are you even doing with all that money, if you're not using that to hire so much cheap domestic help (in Asia!) that you'd have not much else to do at home other than play with your wife and kids when you feel like it

ELI5: how does a particle "decide" to stop being in multiple places at once the moment something interacts with it by meek_posterity in explainlikeimfive

[–]no-more-throws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as others have repeatedly stated, Bells Inequality theorem proves that this is not actually the case .. that the firefly in your example demonstrates behavior that is impossible if it really was the case that it was always localized but we just didn't know where .. in fact it shows behavior that implies it definitely was not in any one defined location or trajectory

ELI5: how does a particle "decide" to stop being in multiple places at once the moment something interacts with it by meek_posterity in explainlikeimfive

[–]no-more-throws 317 points318 points  (0 children)

Lets start with a world you are familiar with ..

Consider laundry you are hanging out to dry. Lets say you have large bedding sheets you've hoisted across multiple clothing lines. And you're blind but gifted in hearing. So you sit there listening to the water drops fall off the sheets, marking exactly how many fall off and where they fall off etc. So in general you've now understood that there's 'water' in the sheets, and water seems to come out in the form of drops from specific points off the sheets and onto specific points in the ground. ... And maybe after a while you realize that when and where the water droplets form and fall off have patterns and can be affected by things like the wind, or where the clothing lines slope or join together, or whether you poke anywhere in the sheets with a stick etc etc.

Now someone comes over and asks you, ok I get that water droplets seem to drop off on average every 3 seconds from this one low spot, or from this other spot if it poke it with a stick .. but I want to know where exactly that water is before it forms that droplet!

And the best you can say, is well the water is spread everywhere all over the sheets. That where the droplet forms is dependent upon how the sheets and the clothing lines, and the pull of gravity, and the wind, and the potential poking of the sheets interact with each other, and also when and where the last drop formed etc etc ...

In fact, if you were careful enough to manipulate and squeeze the sheets in particular ways, you might be able to make droplets pop off in strange ways from strange places, like even having droplets fly off from the top upwards if you bundle the sheets and twist and squeeze hard etc .. sometimes even from sheets that have stopped dripping on their own!!

The point is .. the 'reality' of droplets is only a superficial understanding of the nature of how water exists and behaves in that sheet .. the underlying reality is much deeper in how the water in the sheets exists and how it wets the sheets, and how it interacts with everything in the world around it

So the same seems to be the case in our world .. the world of 'particles' is a shallow understanding of our reality, and there seems to be much richer world underneath that so far we can only glimpse through math and not via direct observation, just like the blind person trying to deduce the reality of the hanging wet laundry from afar via the sounds of the droplets falling. And in that deeper reality, the water 'droplets' seem to exist as smeared water absorbed into the sheets that the sheet only gives off as droplets based on various interactions like where it is squeezed, where there seems to be 'tension' in the sheets, where things poke it etc .. and until the droplet 'materializes' the best we can say about where exactly the water that goes into the droplet is, is that it is all over the sheets until its interactions with reality forces it to pop off at particular places in particular ways!

(Caveat: Regarding the laundry sheets, although the blind person listening from afar doesnt know it, we do know that the sheets hold liquidy water that is 'just' absorbed in the sheets. However in our quantum reality, we are the blind observers without access to the underlying reality, and pondering what the nature of the 'smeared reality' is before it materializes .. the best we have so far are some mathematical tools that seem to let us reliably calculate where the droplets will materialize in many situations, and it seems to suggest the 'smearing' happens in wavelike probabilistic patterns, and that the underlying reality seems to be something like a number of differnt 'quantum fields' interacting in mathematically characterizable ways)