There’s been plenty of explanations already, but here’s a perspective I think can help:

Your original intuition is entirely correct for an object that appeared next to earth but which isn’t moving relative to the sun. It would fall straight in with very little trouble. If it’s moving a little sideways then it’d need to be nudged to make sure it didn’t miss the sun.

But the Earth is moving super fast sideways, so an object coming from Earth would need to be nudged a lot to not miss the sun.

I’ve certainly been there, shocked to realise my personal slice of reality was unusual. At least in this case, it’s a good problem to have.

But surely equality has been achieved in the last few months, this all feels so very January. People are so much more open minded now than in those dark days of the past. Why waste time even discussing such outdated attitudes that totally and completely disappeared in February and are certain to never return?!

It may be in a scientific paper, but this is more of an anecdote about the various issues the author encountered, rather than something intended to be actionable and clearly delineated as you’d expect in the body of a scientific article. Therefore a more literary style is appropriate for this section.

My mental model is that bullet points are for when you expect a reader to go over the points with a highlighter, prose for when you want to produce an emotional response. This feels more like the latter.

Advertising company finally gets memo that threats to the function of the advertising ecosystem are actually also threats to them, eventually.

Took them a while to do that maths.

Ironic that his polite human-scale protest wouldn’t have gotten much attention if the police hadn’t turned it into national news.

True, I guess we need a Batman to handle this Joker, the “police” have been overwhelmed

See how long you last as police chief if you choose to not suppress crime.

So yeah, police are explicitly responsible for minimising crime, that’s literally their job.

I admit there’s some nuance there since police aren’t expected to actually prevent all crime. In this metaphor I guess the question is whether Trump is a bog standard criminal that maybe gets around the police but is kept mostly in check, or if he’s a special level of super-criminal that police chief Biden should have his career judged against.

My dad and his brother didn’t get diagnosed until adulthood.

My dad after he wore a horrific shirt at uni, and my uncle after he passed almost all the tests to be a airforce pilot.

Turns out they don’t have colourblind mode for military jets, and colourblindness can be surprisingly well hidden, the brain does everything it can to hide the flaw, you really have to break assumptions to make it glitch out and guess wrong.

I once had to stay in Birmingham after a cancelled train. On leaving the station I was accosted by a drunk demanding cigarettes, who started swearing at me after I admitted I didn’t smoke. That’s my only experience of Birmingham, I have to assume it’s typical.

I agree there’s a distinction between the 2 markets. I’d place it more on the style of monetisation than anything else, but I’ll admit there’s a difference.

But I still think using the platform to distinguish them is unhelpful, phones aren’t going anywhere, they’ll grow as a market and slowly absorb parts of the console and pc markets, so either the non-casual phone games industry needs to grow, or casual games will be the only games left. I think it’s fair to say that phones are currently infested with low effort casual games with awful monetisation strategies, but they don’t have to be, and quality games do exist on the platform and do have a following, my hope is that continues to grow and finds a niche on the platform, so hopefully you see why I dislike defining the platform as casual with “novelties”

I agree there’s a big difference between casual games and… “advanced” games.

But splitting by platform is a bad way to do that. Xcom2, Rome total war, alien isolation. The full version of all those games is on mobile, none of them are even remotely “casual”.

Touch input can limit the kinds of games that play well, twitch shooters will probably never be great on mobile, but advanced strategy games are perfectly suited for mobile.

Technically, the kernel doesn’t compile with pure standard C, they require strict aliasing to be disabled, so that alone doesn’t seem to be strictly required.

Not saying that standards aren’t useful, but they’re not some dividing line separating the true languages from the joke languages, they’re just a useful document that earns a language a few “good language” points, but those points can be earned other ways too.

For example, rust has pretty good versioning, so even if the devs did totally wreck the language in the next version, it’d maintain compatibility with older code just fine, which sort of invalidates your point, unless you’re worried that the devs turn malicious, but the language is open source, so I imagine that would get it forked pretty quickly.

Or a “star in a bottle”

Agreed, he was only technically a nazi.

The Wehrmacht was not “clean”, certainly.

But that article doesn’t seem to claim that individual soldiers have the same guaranteed culpability.

That’s not to say that even low grade nazis were ever innocent and pure, but I think there’s a little grey.

If we’re trying to find a single good nazi in all of history, then I think technically Schindler counts.

Not OP, but regardless of it being ugly, it is novel and kind of goofy look, which has some appeal. Like buying a car designed by a child it’s sort of “fun”.

Otoh, I don’t have the cash to throw away on “fun”, and regardless, funding a nazi definitely ruins the fun, so even if I won the lottery, I’d have to find my fun elsewhere I suppose.

Also worth noting, ignoring all of that, the fact it was built so poorly and is clearly just flawed in ways that go well beyond the aesthetics also ruins it, even if musk wasn’t a nazi and the car wasn’t ridiculously expensive.

No need for sharp comments, I’m sure they’re acutely aware of their architectural problems.

No, but I will acknowledge where some democratic elements exist within even the DPRK, though they’re very thin and weak.

There are other forms of government that are a better match for describing the DPRK. One party dictatorship, for example.

If you want to apply the same logic to the US, calling it simply an oligarchy rings hollow, though there’s a stronger argument than DPRK+democracy I’ll admit. It’s a democracy with flaws, but those flaws are smaller than the democratic elements they weaken, so it still gets to be called a democracy.

Everyone can always call themselves whatever they want. But fear that people might use a kernel of truth to sell a lie isn’t a good reason to throw away even a tiny part of the truth.