"It is the first time since 1972 that humans have travelled outside of the Earth's orbit." But they're not tho (Earth's gravitational dominance extends 4x the distance to the moon)
> It is the first time since 1972 that humans have travelled outside of the Earth's orbit.
They mean outside of low Earth orbit (which basically means further away than the ISS). The phrasing is not ideal.
> Earth's gravitational dominance extends 4x the distance to the moon
"Earth's gravitational dominance" is not a single thing; it depends on what kind of "dominance" you're talking about.
For example, even though the Moon is usually described as being in orbit about the Earth, its orbit is always concave towards the Sun. In other words, its net gravitational acceleration is always towards the Sun--even when the Earth is on the other side of it from the Sun. So by this criterion it's not in orbit about the Earth, it's in orbit about the Sun, doing a complicated do-si-do with the Earth, also in orbit about the Sun.
I'm not sure what definition of "dominance" you're using that extends the Earth's "dominance" to 4 times the distance of the Moon.
This video explains what you’re talking about re the moons orbit always curving toward the sun, and also mentions Earths gravitational dominance.
It’s about the suns gravitational pull on the moon dominating over the Earths gravitational pull on the moon, but that due to the centrifugal force (there isn’t one, so conservation of angular momentum) the Earth's gravitational pull dominates.
The statement I made about acceleration due to gravity was with reference to an inertial frame centered on the Sun, in which there is no centrifugal force. The video you reference takes that viewpoint during its first part.
The claim about centrifugal force refers to the Hill sphere, which is a different notion of "gravitational dominance". The basic idea behind that is that, while the Sun's force on the Moon is greater than the Earth's, it varies in space, in the region where the Earth and Moon are orbiting, much less than the Earth's does. So we can "subtract out" the Sun's gravitational force, so to speak, since we can approximate it as constant in the region we're interested in.
The video, however, bungles this somewhat, because its claim about "centrifugal force" is made in a frame which is centered on the Sun--but rotating at the same rate the Earth revolves around the Sun. But nobody actually uses such a frame! Doing that would be silly. The natural frame for us on Earth to use if we "subtract out" the Sun's gravitational force to analyze the Earth-Moon motion is a frame centered on the Earth.
In this frame, we can say that the Moon orbits the Earth, not because there is some "centrifugal force" canceling out the Sun's force, but because we've subtracted out the Sun's force by centering our frame on the Earth. Or, to put it another way, we're treating the whole Earth-Moon system as freely falling in the Sun's gravitational field, and as long as the Sun's field is, to a good enough approximation, constant in the region we're interested in, we can simply ignore the Sun's gravitational force. (This viewpoint is much more natural in General Relativity, where "gravity" is not a force at all to begin with.) Such a frame is called an "Earth-Centered Inertial" frame, and it's the frame that's being used, for example, to manage the Artemis II spaceflight.
But one could imagine, as a failsafe, arranging things so that Integrity was in fact still in orbit around the Earth, as a sort of "backup" in the event that they somehow missed the moon's slingshot effect.
One is free as in freedom, the other is beholden to the business of a billionaire with a political agenda.
Ironically, the section "criticism and controversies" on the Grokipedia article on Grokipedia gives a good overview.
https://grokipedia.com/page/grokopedia
Now AI is summarizing your daily progress from your commits and AI is writing the planning docs (with HITL). And version control makes it a historical record of your planning process. Keeping detailed planning docs doesn't take your whole day anymore and can be an integral part of any IC's workflow now.
CICD is a vast improvement over the manual deployments I was involved in. Usually those were on Friday nights and 10+ people had to wait their turn before deploying. Sometimes it only took a couple of hours; some deployments lasted until the morning.
Yea, this project gives less "my contract partners will benevolently read my diary after I die" than "enabling and incentivizing my closest friends to hold a vote to redistribute all my assets amongst themselves"
It sounds like AI summarization tools would be beneficial. You can just have the conversation, not fill out any forms afterward, then your partner can either watch the recording or read the AI summary of the relevant customer needs from the recording (or ask their AI agent questions about the transcript of the recording).
Are other phrases of the form "ending ____ness", where ____ is a racial qualifier, also acceptable, then? Someone using that term could similarly argue that they're not advocating for the eradication of ____ people - just the identity and behavior associated with ____ people.
Are you arguing that calling it "whiteness" is a bad branding move by the sociologists? In that case, I fully agree. There's other similar bad branding moves like "toxic masculinity" or "racism = power + prejudice". I wish they would change those words.
Or do you mean that sociologists who speak about "abolishing whiteness" secretly mean "abolishing the behavior and identity of white people"? No I wouldn't agree with that. I think they mean what they say, and when they tell you their definition of "whiteness", that's what they're referring to. Not some other thing.
What a bizarre bait and switch. Starts talking about browsers allowing malformed HTML and uses that to draw conclusions about allowing certain types of people.
It's a poor metaphor. Real tolerance necessitates intolerance - see Marcuse. What is a browser going to do, send malformed HTTP requests and name-and-shame any server who refuses to respond? Servers vs. browsers is not the same type of relationship as people vs. people.
Not to mention that the author's metaphor is implying that certain types of people are malformed.
