Tlaloc_Temporal

It would be far better for certain organic compounds though. Increase the effectiveness of drugs, eliminate side-effects, drastically cheapen the production of many componds making new products feasible.

But yeah, already living things would probably die very quickly.

Carried itens put strain along the sholders and entire spine, and contribute to a high center of gravity. Waist mounted items (like this tail) put strain on only the hips and legs, and in the most stable way. I’d only be worried if there was a particular problem with hips or legs.

So far, we haven’t seen a physical infinity in any part of the universe, so if our models produce a point of infinite anything, they’re probably wrong.

Even better, no straw. Sip it straight from the cup.

That definition means a planet has nothing to do with physical state, and everything to do with the proximity of your neighbors. We could promote the Moon to a planet by pushing it further away, or demote Earth from being a planet by slinging it a bit closer to it’s hungry uncle Jupiter. We could demote all planets by extinguishing the Sun! Then the entire system stops working and it’s all just asteroid or something.

That arbitrarily chosen definition doesn’t describe the object, only it’s place in the malleable hierarchy. With this, the title of planet tells us nothing about the object itself, except that it’s orbit is only dominated by a star.

Even worse, the IAU definition is extra arbitrary, as it only counts objects that orbit specifically the Sun, so the vast majority of bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium that don’t fuse hydrogen aren’t planets. They also play very lose with hydrostatic equilibrium, as Mercury isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium, yet is explicitly classified as a planet. And “clearing it’s orbit” is also rather indistinct, with no method to determine this is given. It’s up to argument if Neptune is a planet, as many plutoids intersect it’s orbit.

Even more worse, the barycentre of our solar system is sometimes outside of the sun! That means sometimes the Sun is co-orbiting with the rest of the solar system bodies, and therefore by this definition nothing is a planet! It’s a definition so arbitrary that it periodically stops existing!

I’m not just saying I disagree with the IAU here, but that their definitely is objectively poor, and poorly used. I agree that Pluto, Eris, Ceres, and many others should be in a different category from Jupiter, but make some categories that make sense, please!

Sounds like a sweat lodge. I don’t know how hot they get those normally.

Pluto and Charon orbit each other. The barycentre (the center of mass they both orbit) is far outside of Pluto. The Earth-Moon barycentre is still inside Earth, though this could be changed by moving the Moon further out.

Either way, Earth, the largest rocky planet, could be made into a moon by sending it to Jupiter, so I don’t think being a moon should disqualify a celestial body from being a planet.

There’s also plenty of classifications of plants based on form! Non-vascular plants, woody plants, herbaceous plants, algae and lichen…

Most of our “rocky” planets are pretty wet though. Mars is drying out, but Venus is caked with volatile chemicals and Earth is downright infected. Only Mercury is really barren, partly due to it’s small size. I could easily see three categories for gravitationally rounded bodies that can’t fuse hydrogen: Dry planets (usully smaller), Wet planets (usually larger), and Gaseous planets (gas giants).

Yeah, in MIB he has Agent K to play off of. MIB 3, where he’s the sole driver of the narrative, was a weak entry partly because of this.

He has plenty of good movies and is an objectively good actor, but I think his style needs to be used well, and i, Robot doesn’t quite hit it. Maybe if Dr. Calvin was a stronger character rather than a worrywort and source of romantic tension, I’d like his performance more.

Oh, that chemistry is great, but I don’t think he plays the investigator part well, especially when trying to follow the clues left by Dr Lanning. Will Smith’s style is very off the cuff and anti-authority, and while that works in MIB where there’s the very strict Agent K to play off of, I don’t think he works as the sole driver of a light mystery. Sonny and Spooner’s interactions are fantastic, but they’re usually driven by Sonny giving exposition. Spooner is usually just running from things as they unfold.

All in all, not a bad performance (there were plenty of objectively worse ones), but I don’t think it does the movie any favours. There are plenty of great things about i, Robot, but Will Smith is not one of them in my opinion.

I don’t particularly like his acting style, completely outside anything he does as a person. iRobot and Men In Black are some of his better roles, but like Jeff Goldblum or Eddy Murphy, he can only play himself. I don’t think it works in iRobot that well though, but that’s more of a casting choice than bad acting.

The dot-com bubble isn’t the internet. The internet existed long before and continued to grow after. Companies that used digital posters on the internet had a crash, but the internet kept growing.

Digital posters do still have a use today, and there are still companies running on promises, but digital promises are simple and cheap. AI is not. At least not in this form.

Big tech hype will continue after this tech hype bubble pops, but that doesn’t mean the tech is good.

There were good parts in that movie, but Will Smith wasn’t one of them.

And many bacteria can live for years in hard vacuum. That doesn’t tell us anything about the environment they need to live though.

Nyou guys nan shtill shmell?

Blaschko’s lines happen mostly in mosaicism, where an embryo is formed by the fusion of two embryos, gets a mutation early in development, or otherwise gets two different genotypes. It can also be caused by X-linked genes. If those genotypes produce different skin colours or react differently to skin diseases, you can see the lines directly.

It looks like any visible form of mosaic disease may present along Blaschko’s lines.

There’s lot’s of issues with current physics, mostly in cosmology. String Theory was partly invented to describe the interior of a black hole. The characteristics of the Higgs field are still unknown. Gravity is still not unified with the other forces, despite appearing to couple with everything. Our current best models for the formation of the universe predict huge amounts of invisible matter, and we have no idea what that could be, from new particles to microscopic black holes formed in the first nanoseconds of the universe, to reinterpretations of relativity. Those same models also predict that out universe is dominated by strange energy inherent to space itself, which has no basis in the Standard Model at all. I wouldn’t call these perfectly fine answers.

And even if the nature of the interior of a black hole what the only issue, the final part of physics we haven’t explained, I would say we’ve thought that before. About a century ago, the scientific community though they had mostly solved physics. The last big question was why ultraviolet light didn’t extend out to infinite energy as predicted. Then photons happened and we discovered quantum physics.

As far as I can tell, brain rot encourages no thoughts, head empty enjoyment. It expects and promotes the lowest common denominator thoughts, like a thought stopping cliche but for entertainment instead of propaganda.

There’s plenty of mature brain rot and it’s only non-productive in the same way most media is. I can see calling it decompression-driven, but more as a form of escapist relaxation, like coloring books or knitting. It’s main focus is mininal mental effort, hence the name.

TL;DR: Ye, paper is garbo.

Well there you go, you got it.

“Tree” isn’t a phylogeny, it’s a strategy. They definitely were trees.