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.
Especially the LED backlight ones. Those are so bright they blind you, then switch brightness rapidly.
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.
You need that living habitate to survive 6 months in 0g minimum, plus move it planetside without breaking anything.
You could expand the habitate to a larger area later, true, but there’s still like 7 mass cycles that need to be maintained long term, and this system needs to be robust enough to trust a few dozen people to. Otherwise, it’s just an extension of Earth’s biosphere and is dependent on regular resupply.
1 in 7 means lots of friend groups just don’t have players. It’s very likely that many children will grow up without really knowing what roblox is.
Ceres would be a way better start. Lots of water for shielding, consumption, and fuel; easy access to asteroid orbits; and a shallow gravity well to make transport easy.
Similarly, many of the icy moons around the gas giants would be good, also with decent mining, but better science opportunities too!
Our Moon is good too. Close, big enough to not need zero gravity setups. That’s actually about it really, it’s just right here. May as well do Orbit I guess.
Start with Antarctica and the ocean floor. That’s still 80% as difficult, and rescue can take 30 minutes, not 3 days or 10 months!
You need a very big one though, and humans need a more varied diet than soil bugs.
You’d also need to deploy the system, or find a way to maintain it all the way from Earth orbit to Mars’ surface.
1kg of oxygen is a good estimate, humand need 0.5-1kg per day.
Astronaut calorie budges is a bit higher than average, as would be for labouring humans. About 3000kcal, or 12 MJ.
I think more important than the raw energy and oxygen is sourcing the water, cleaning the water, producing the energy to electrolyse and heat, and maintaining the equipment necessary to do so. And that’s assuming all food is shipped in.
While that is an interesting idea, I don’t think Boost should be the one to implement it.
There’s no way it has 100% market penetration.
If the language makes common but dofficult to deal with error impossible, that’s nice. Not critical, but nice.
If the language introduces easy to make and hard to deal with errors, that’s an issue. Not a deal breaker, but an issue.
The idea does exist, but it’s stated with way more confidence and finality than it deserves. That’s social media I guess.
The evolution strategy: if you don’t know what you’re doing, every function is a feature!
That’s a fast trip to feudalism.
That’s a Scleral Ring and helps to keep the shape of the eye in fish, many reptiles, and birds. Fish don’t have round eyes (they’re shaped more like M&Ms or chocolate chips), and the ring helps support the shape when swimming. Most rings are just cartilage, but fast swimmers often have bony rings.
Even if sodium takes off, lithium still has a higher energy density. Lots of uses will want that, even if it’s more expensive and dangerous.
That’s why we have the compound word “through-hole”.
90% of important parts on living things are pockets and manipulations of surface area, two things completely ignored by topology. Topology is interesting mathematically, and has meaning for traversal and knot problems, but it’s not really useful to describe reality.
We should be starting domestic manufacturing that just does x amount of rail each year. Fully funded, doesn’t matter where, just pick a place and go.