MartianSands

joined 2 years ago

We really don't. Our history curriculum is much more concerned with ancient history. As far as I can remember, we spent a little time on the colonisation of the Americas then didn't mention them again until the world wars.

The empire covered something like 20% of the entire worlds landmass. If they spent time in school for every part of it which went on to become something noteworthy, they'd run out of time for any other history at all.

The foundation of the US really isn't as important to the rest of the world as the US thinks it is

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 28 points 4 days ago (3 children)

An experimental capability being kicked out of the kernel, so that it has to settle for being a kernel module or custom forks of the kernel, is absolutely a minor matter

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 40 points 4 days ago (5 children)

This is a non-issue, being over-reported by people looking for clicks. A minor technical matter being handled by the person ultimately responsible for handling such things

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

Israel and trump appear to be claiming to have defeated the Iranian air defense, and achieve air supremacy over the Iranian capital.

If that's true then Iran is in deep trouble, and inviting them to surrender wouldn't be unreasonable. I very much doubt that it is true, but that's what they seem to believe

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's far harder to achieve mass manipulation of the ballot when it's all being handled by a lot of human hands. If it's managed by computers, then by finding a bug or other vulnerability in the software or database you could alter the whole election.

Meanwhile, to manipulate a paper ballot & hand-counted election in the same way you'd need the cooperation of a huge number of people, and you'd need them all to keep their mouths shut. That's far more difficult than defeating a computerised system

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 32 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That really isn't how that works. The US has declared that they won't allow the international courts to get involved, but that doesn't necessarily prevent those courts from disagreeing.

"Jurisdiction" is only a thing when a court answers to some higher authority who has limited what that court can do. Since the international courts theoretically don't answer to the US government, they can make any ruling they like.

They're unlikely to bother, since they probably won't be in a position to enforce any ruling against typical foot soldiers, but they absolutely could if it came to that point

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's an implementation detail, not really relevant to my point.

I don't think you appreciate how powerful those magnets are. Any ferromagnetic object would be doing well to avoid binding up completely when held right up to the device

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Realistically, the mechanism would jam. I doubt the hammer would fall, being squeezed hard against whatever structure supports it

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (8 children)

You're overlooking the fact that this development is a side project for them. While they're designing this rocket, their other rocket is in operational use and has the best success rate of any rocket of its scale in history, and they'd already be considered hugely successful if they never did anything innovative ever again.

They're also trying to do something far more difficult than the Saturn 5, in at least two ways. Nobody has ever tried to land a rocket anywhere near as large as either of the stages of this system, and on top of that they're trying to come up with a design which is cheap to operate, which wasn't remotely on the cards during the Apollo program.

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

Honestly I think it's misleading to describe it as being "defined" as 1, precisely because it makes it sounds like someone was trying to squeeze the definition into a convenient shape.

I say, rather, that it naturally turns out to be that way because of the nature of the sequence. You can't really choose anything else

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

X^0 and 0! aren't actually special cases though, you can reach them logically from things which are obvious.

For X^0: you can get from X^(n) to X^(n-1) by dividing by X. That works for all n, so we can say for example that 2³ is 2⁴/2, which is 16/2 which is 8. Similarly, 2¹/2 is 2⁰, but it's also obviously 1.

The argument for 0! is basically the same. 3! is 1x2x3, and to go to 2! you divide it by 3. You can go from 1! to 0! by dividing 1 by 1.

In both cases the only thing which is special about 1 is that any number divided by itself is 1, just like any number subtracted from itself is 0

view more: next ›