NaibofTabr

Yeah… how exactly do you ventilate 40km of tunnel under the ocean?

The pump to drive air through 25km of duct would be an impressive piece of engineering all by itself.

The duct would be a real piece of work. The pressure in the middle of that pipe would be kind of nuts.

inorite

Huh… so…

There is not a tectonic plate boundary there… drilling a permanent tunnel could actually work… at least, it wouldn’t be especially vulnerable to earthquake issues…

That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, of course… 85km is a very long distance to travel through a tunnel. A train would make a lot more sense than trucks for cargo movement.

If you were planning to buy any electronic devices soon, do it now and be satisfied with the specs for the next 2 years.

Um… but you said:

“There is nothing broad about their questions”

The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation

And, if your curiosity goes beyond that basic explanation, check out this NASA page on rocket launches:

Chapter 14: Launch

If a spacecraft is launched from a site near Earth’s equator, it can take optimum advantage of the Earth’s substantial rotational speed. Sitting on the launch pad near the equator, it is already moving at a speed of over 1650 km per hour relative to Earth’s center. This can be applied to the speed required to orbit the Earth (approximately 28,000 km per hour).

Getting into orbit doesn’t just require overcoming the force of gravity pulling down. In order to stay up, you basically have to put yourself on a path that allows you to go around the Earth faster (or as fast as) you fall back towards it. When your movement around the Earth is balanced with the rate that you’re falling, you are in orbit. This means you have to go really fucking fast, not just up but sideways.

Oh yeah, that’s a good reason to aid the expansion of global surveillance. Let’s all be complicit with the police state because we can’t acknowledge our social anxieties with a bit of honesty.

What is that, like 1 minute’s revenue for Amazon?

Er, not really… for instance:

“…back in the day?”

Which ‘day’? Before digital mapping? Before cartography as a formal practice? Before the invention of the compass? Before the standardization of the meter? Before the printing press? Before Galileo? Before Eratosthenes?

The time period of the question is potentially the entirety of human history. That’s quite broad.

What methods were used to scale down in world, to paper distances?

In which part of the world? In which culture? For what purpose? (e.g. navigation? coastal, inland, international? crop planting? city planning? determining property lines? etc)

This is not a straightforward question in any way. A complete answer would be an undergraduate degree with a double major in history and geography.

Pee is stored in expelled from the balls.

Here we go again…

Hmm, OK could be interesting…

O… K…

Um…

Yeah… that makes sense…

That’s intended behavior, right? Let me guess, you used the project to vibe code the web page?

Good show mate, off to a brilliant start.

Why do those things cause cancer? Why do some smokers not die of cancer? The reason it’s so vague is because we don’t actually know what causes cancer.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding now.

Just because a natural process contains some inherent randomness does not mean that we do not know how it works. Knowing exactly how a thing occurs does not make the action of that thing deterministic. Just because it is unpredictable on an individual scale does not mean it is mysterious, or beyond our understanding.

Some people exposed to a carcinogen will develop cancerous cells. Some will not. Some of their immune systems will remove the cancer cells before they cause problems. Some will not. Some will develop tumors from those cells. Some of those cells will die and get filtered out by the kidneys or liver before they reproduce and form tumors. Some of those tumors will grow enough to be lethal. Some will become benign before they cause significant health problems.

The outcome depends on many factors like age, health, exercise, diet, exposure, genetic background, etc. There are more variables than we can possibly track for any given person. Even if we could get all of that information, we are ultimately talking about the interactions of certain molecules with proteins in cells - meaning that quantum effects are relevant, so there is some probability involved.

We know what is associated with cancer, but not what causes it.

We know what causes cancer. Genetic mutations during cell reproduction cause cancer. We don’t know every possible thing that can provoke genetic mutations (that would require infinite knowledge), nor do we know if a specific individual will develop cancer in response to a specific carcinogen. The outcome is probabilistic.

Again, just because there is some inherent randomness does not mean that we don’t understand how it works. Understanding something does not make it deterministic.

I mean… OK, but like I’m cutting back on all the online spaces operated by Meta, so… if people are staying on those, yeah, I guess we’re gonna be out of touch.

Living their best life, apparently.

The title is “git gud”.

1. You will live, consciously aware, for eternity.
2. Your consciousness will be bound to the body which consumes the elixir.
3. The body will continue to age and eventually decompose normally.

We know many causes of cancer. We don’t know every possible thing that might provoke cell mutations. We know that it’s not any one specific thing.

We don’t know what causes cancer. It’s the oncogenic paradox.

Hmm, this is not really true though…

We know that cancer is caused by genetic mutations during cell replication, resulting in malformed cells which behave abnormally. If these cells then replicate successfully they can produce tumors. We know that this can happen with basically any cell type, though some animals have very low cancer rates.

Mechanically, we know that a lot of different sources can provoke genetic mutations in cells. We have identified many, many such influences (radiation, various chemicals, viruses, etc). Asbestos fibers can interfere with chromosomes mechanically during mitosis:

There is experimental evidence that very slim fibers (<60 nm, <0.06 μm in breadth) tangle destructively with chromosomes (being of comparable size). This is likely to cause the sort of mitosis disruption expected in cancer.

We know many causes of cancer. We don’t know every possible thing that might provoke cell mutations. We know that it’s not any one specific thing.

We also know that cellular mutation is part of the evolutionary process. It might not be possible to “cure cancer” in the sense of preventing cellular mutations, as this may be a built-in function of what we are as a species. Preventing mutation might also not be a good long-term strategy for the survival of the species.

I wonder how much of this depended on the differences in device screens. In 2015 there was a lot more variability in display technology, lower resolutions in general and worse color fidelity. OLED was uncommon and expensive, you probably only had an IPS display if you worked in graphic arts, and a lot of people were still using standard LCD monitors backlit with fluorescent tubes, which meant that the black depth was limited and the detail in dark regions of an image was frequently not visible on the screen.