Jonathan Tanner

@EwanCartwright @Jack_Frodo They'd need a tether, we're not talking about an extended eva certainly, but I think the legs move a little more than the ISS EMUs because they walked to the pad in them (albeit unpressurised). Certainly neither is a good option.

@aDifferentJT @Jack_Frodo -no life support -no thermal protection -joints don't move -not designed for performing complex tasks on extended EVAs ok man

Artemis does Apollo 10, but lands on the surface and re-ascends without doing an EVA

@EwanCartwright @Jack_Frodo Using the Polaris Dawn suits seems like a better bet to me

@Jack_Frodo At that point surely they'd just borrow the ISS EMUs and hope for the best

@kamiljdudek @DylanMcD8 Last time I tried that it nerfed system performance

@DylanMcD8 Wait till you learn about Intel Active Management Engine

The macOS updates work are so weird to me like how does SCREEN SHARING still work

@MichaelFKane I've always thought of hydrostatic equilibrium as meaning that if you replaced it with a non viscous fluid the shape wouldn't really change, under which definition the rotation induced flattening of Haumea is not a problem. Also avoids having to draw arbitrary lines of oblateness

This post 1) misses the point entirely 2) is factually wrong. Currently there are 3 criteria in the IAU definition of planet. Let's go through each. 1. Must orbit the sun. No one objects to the basic premise of this (save for the fact that it requires exo-planets to have a different definition) and so no one wants to completely toss this part of the definition. The post below lists a whole bunch of moons. No one is asking for moons to become planets. Titan will never be a planet. 2. Has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape). IE it has enough mass to round itself. Again. No one objects directly to this. However the poster below has posted two non-round moons, Minmas and Nereid. And I have to assume that the vast majority of the other 100 'planets' he is referencing are tiny moons just like this. Again. They fail on a criteria no one strongly disagrees on. (It could however be shored up in a couple edge case instances. Case 1, Ceres. Ceres is round, but only because it's made of ice. If it was made of rock of the same mass, it would be irregular. There isn't a clause on structural composition to this part of the definition and it makes a difference in some cases. Case two, Haumea. Haumea is a Kuiper belt object that spins so fast it has flattened itself rather than become a sphere. Basically there is an extra force keeping it from reaching hydrostatic equilibrium. Current definition doesn't know what to do with that edge case either) 3. Has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit. This is the part of the current that is widely rejected. Basically the intention is to say that the object is gravitationally dominant in it's part of space. There are multiple reasons why this doesn't work but I'll give you a big one: neighborhood clearing makes planethood a matter of location. For instance, move Mercury to Pluto's orbit or a little further and (depending on whose math you use) it would be unable to clear that orbit, dropping it from planetary status. So yeah, orbit clearing is arbitrary nonsense, probably including specifically to disqualify Pluto. Where does this leave the below post's claims? Supposing the definition is amended someday, (it probably will be) items one and two will probably not change much other than a brief tighten up to clear up edge cases. Number three is obviously just junk and needs to go. That does leave us with more planets, but it does not leave us with hundreds. Here is who we would add. Ceres. Largest 'asteroid' in the belt. It's round. Could be dropped if they decided it's only round because it's ice. Pluto. Welcome back. We missed you. Haumea. I love this little rock. Go read up on it. Only added if it's rotation induced flattening is given a pass. Makemake and Eris. Both notable dwarf planets. Their discovery is what caused the IAU to write a formal definition that booted Pluto. Those are the shoe-ins. Also on the list might be Quaoar, Gonggong, Orcus, and Sedna. We honestly just know a less about these. They might make the cut, but we haven't had the opportunity to study these much. So we would end up with 13 planets up to maybe 18 in a reasonable adjustment of the official definition of planet. This is fine and nothing to freak out about. Not 100s. Post below is nonsense.

@rodrigop2p @iamdevloper End the current call and accept the incoming call

@iamdevloper What the fuck is "end & accept" supposed to do again?

I'll wait....

@DanielJDevane @Thomas_Yo_elS It's actually legally unclear as to whether the Act of Parliament was necessary for the abdication itself, or whether it was only necessary in order to bar future descendants of Edward VIII. Prof Anne Twomey did a good explanation on this here youtube.com/watch?v=t81HU0…

No he cannot. There is no precedent for this. If you are referring to Edward VIII, the Instrument of Abdication had no legal effect on its own. It only stated an intent. It only had effect after Parliament enabled His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act. Personal forfeiture is necessary but not legally sufficient without Parliament.

He cannot do this. The Line of Succession is governed by law not by consent. An Act of Parliament and hence agreement from the other realms would be required even if Andrew asked for his own removal. The only way for Andrew to be automatically disqualified is to convert to Catholicism.

@MagnaAulae @seektruthfromfx @2D0XPS Sorry, I assumed the question was still about approval for the Eucharist

@aDifferentJT @seektruthfromfx @2D0XPS I have checked the Measure because you will see that I linked to it in an earlier post. It contains nothing relevant to the question of whether an Acting Bishop is a voting member of Convocation. Paragraph 8 asserts he or she is not but contains no authority for that assertion.

Who gave permission for Holy Communion to be celebrated in Church House given that there is no Bishop of London atm? +Cantuar?

@MagnaAulae @seektruthfromfx @2D0XPS Paragraph 5 is the relevant one, and you can check the measure itself to be sure

@seektruthfromfx @2D0XPS That is interesting. However, paragraph 8 is an assertion not an explanation. It is not self-evident and I suspect it could be challenged.

@rtxvortx @LeakerApple @Cartidise Close and minimise have that in common but that doesn't make them the same, just different things with a common element

@LeakerApple @Cartidise He means it doesn’t fully “end” the process, there will be some sort of resource usage unless you fully quit the app using cmd+q

Why are people so confused about the macOS traffic light options. As a lifelong Windows user it’s really simple: Red: Close window Yellow: Minimise window Green: Maximise window Unlike Windows where some apps continue to run in the System Tray, macOS apps remain “open” to signal that they’re still running in the background. You simply press Command + Q to quit the app, similar to right clicking the app in the Windows System Tray and quitting it.

@funnyusername30 @JellyRiq @LiquidTK421 @METALLlCA That's okay, it's okay to be wrong

@JellyRiq @LiquidTK421 @METALLlCA Unfortunately for you my friend, it does

every day i realize how many people think the "a" vs "an" rule is based on the letter itself and not the sound

@Tech_girlll Use something else if it conveys a domain specific meaning, but use i to mean iteration index where that is the most helpful thing to signify.

I personally feel like any other letter for a loop other than i is weird.

@Sly_Superior @earnwithrk @Darkdarling00 There's only 23 hours 56 minutes in a sidereal day, but by default day means solar day, and there are 24 hours in a solar day.

@earnwithrk @Darkdarling00 Could be the 11:59pm… it’s perceived and used as real time, however being only 23hours and 56mins in a day… that time is fictional time accounted for later

“What time is not a real time?”

@AeroBigMike True, but the whole of SLS is shorter than Starship

What’s insane is that SLS’ first stage (core stage+LVSA) is 2.3ft taller than this. SLS is huge.

@renegademormon @Anc_Aesthetics @MrBrum43 It's Now 38, there are 41 tracks on it but it's number 38

@Anc_Aesthetics @MrBrum43 Mandela effect—it’s 41, not 38.

I always found the Mandela effect fascinating but could never 100% buy into any of the theory’s. Until today. The band that sang “I get knocked down, but I get up again’ Spell the name for me?

@KingSunshineSeb @Anc_Aesthetics @MrBrum43 That's actually the Mandela effect, the original Mandela effect was merely describing a psychological phenomenon and had nothing to do with parallel universes, but an example of the Mandela effect is the fact that people think that the Mandela effect is about parallel universes.

@Anc_Aesthetics @MrBrum43 The idea of the mandala effect is that people who misremember things think that it is a convergence of different universes where in their universe it WAS something different to what we have bow

@noctice007 @ChShersh I didn't think that you could use <> in lambdas if you omit the ()

@ChShersh You forgot: []<typename...>{}.operator()<>();

These are valid C++ expressions: [](){} [](){}() []{} []{}()

@SandyofCthulhu Given that the alternative to nuclear has been fossil fuels for the last few decades, and fossil fuel plants also output warm water, plus all the other pollutants, this is a ridiculous argument.

When I was in college, I took a class and the teacher was anti-nuclear, but he was also smart, so he knew there was no threat of a meltdown, and that waste was easy to store, so he had to invent something else to be Bad About Nuclear Plants. What he came up with is that the wastewater from a nuclear plant (which has zero contaminants) was warm. So it would change the ecosystem of nearby rivers by making them a few degrees warmer for several hundred yards. That was the hill he preached upon.

@Ade_Dero @MainMeowMix @EOEboh @ronnie_tech1 We are not talking about encryption here, we're talking about hashing, these are very different and not to be confused

@MainMeowMix @EOEboh @ronnie_tech1 A hash output consists of mainly 3 parts <algorithm info><salt><encrypted string>. The salt isn't just a random string added to the hash. The salt is part of the encryption process.

Great question. When you store passwords, you don't store them directly (that would be unsafe). Instead, you "hash" them. It is hashing that turns "password123" into something like "a7f8k2m9x4". The problem is, if two people use "password123", they both get the same hash result. Hackers know this and have giant cheat sheets that say "if you see a7f8k2m9x4, the original password was password123." The solution to this is "salting". Before hashing the password, you add some random junk to it. So for User A, you might add "xyz" to their password, making it "password123xyz" before hashing. For User B with the same password, you add different junk like "abc", making it "password123abc". Now when hashed, they look completely different. Benefits of salting is that even if a million people use "password123", every single one looks different in your database. Hackers have to work much harder to crack each password individually

@ocramed94 @EOEboh I more often see hashes written in base 64 than base 16

@go4brains @Tech_girlll Final index is not the same as size

@Tech_girlll Because as a programmer you start an array a[0],a[1],a[2],a[3], so final index value is 3.

How many apples can you count?