▲ 748 ▼ Let them eat starlink! (mander.xyz) submitted 1 year ago by Gsus4@mander.xyz to c/enoughmuskspam@lemmy.world 263 comments fedilink hide all child comments stolen from https://old.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/1kmadyp/musk_is_hiking_starlink_costs/
[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) It's important that we think of future generations, statistically this cascade could easily happen in our lifetimes permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) They are low enough that it'd probably fix itself over time. It'd be a big problem, but I feel comming generations have bigger ones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Ok well I have aerospace engineering friends that disagree, and if those quiet mousy guys are panicking then I think they may be on to something permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Oh, I mean, it would be bad, even if it "just" meant no/unsafe launches and no LEO for X months/years. I just kinda feels it pales compared to the climate related problems coming generations are likely to face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) ... an ablative cascade would destroy nearly every satellite and would render ALL launches russian roulette with 5 chambers filled, and it would last for centuries. I really have no idea where you are getting your numbers from but there's ALREADY enough high velocity mass to make LEO a minefield for generations and we're not stopping launching. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Pulling them out of my ass, mostly. Like, the people I know in the field don't seem overly worried, but my own opinion mostly comes from a general awareness that stuff in LEO comes down eventually, and that for the orbit the Starlink Stuff is on, that would probably mean a few years max. Not my field, and if I actually research it, I might find I'm wrong. I still maintain that even a complete loss of launch and orbital capability, while of course a great and horrible disaster, wouldn't doom us much more than our current course as a species already is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm sorry but physics calculations have no room for opinion permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but you seem to also present an opinion, based on sentiment from your friends. Since we both seem to lazy to actually figure it out properly, I feel we're at an impasse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn't mean I'm bad at math. And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel. You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try The problem why you are unconvinced is you don't understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets. This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts. Ah, just like reddit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely. I think it's kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy "turning into reddit", while also reverting to personal insults. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) They are low enough that it'd probably fix itself over time. It'd be a big problem, but I feel comming generations have bigger ones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Ok well I have aerospace engineering friends that disagree, and if those quiet mousy guys are panicking then I think they may be on to something permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Oh, I mean, it would be bad, even if it "just" meant no/unsafe launches and no LEO for X months/years. I just kinda feels it pales compared to the climate related problems coming generations are likely to face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) ... an ablative cascade would destroy nearly every satellite and would render ALL launches russian roulette with 5 chambers filled, and it would last for centuries. I really have no idea where you are getting your numbers from but there's ALREADY enough high velocity mass to make LEO a minefield for generations and we're not stopping launching. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Pulling them out of my ass, mostly. Like, the people I know in the field don't seem overly worried, but my own opinion mostly comes from a general awareness that stuff in LEO comes down eventually, and that for the orbit the Starlink Stuff is on, that would probably mean a few years max. Not my field, and if I actually research it, I might find I'm wrong. I still maintain that even a complete loss of launch and orbital capability, while of course a great and horrible disaster, wouldn't doom us much more than our current course as a species already is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm sorry but physics calculations have no room for opinion permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but you seem to also present an opinion, based on sentiment from your friends. Since we both seem to lazy to actually figure it out properly, I feel we're at an impasse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn't mean I'm bad at math. And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel. You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try The problem why you are unconvinced is you don't understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets. This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts. Ah, just like reddit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely. I think it's kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy "turning into reddit", while also reverting to personal insults. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Ok well I have aerospace engineering friends that disagree, and if those quiet mousy guys are panicking then I think they may be on to something permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Oh, I mean, it would be bad, even if it "just" meant no/unsafe launches and no LEO for X months/years. I just kinda feels it pales compared to the climate related problems coming generations are likely to face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) ... an ablative cascade would destroy nearly every satellite and would render ALL launches russian roulette with 5 chambers filled, and it would last for centuries. I really have no idea where you are getting your numbers from but there's ALREADY enough high velocity mass to make LEO a minefield for generations and we're not stopping launching. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Pulling them out of my ass, mostly. Like, the people I know in the field don't seem overly worried, but my own opinion mostly comes from a general awareness that stuff in LEO comes down eventually, and that for the orbit the Starlink Stuff is on, that would probably mean a few years max. Not my field, and if I actually research it, I might find I'm wrong. I still maintain that even a complete loss of launch and orbital capability, while of course a great and horrible disaster, wouldn't doom us much more than our current course as a species already is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm sorry but physics calculations have no room for opinion permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but you seem to also present an opinion, based on sentiment from your friends. Since we both seem to lazy to actually figure it out properly, I feel we're at an impasse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn't mean I'm bad at math. And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel. You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try The problem why you are unconvinced is you don't understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets. This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts. Ah, just like reddit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely. I think it's kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy "turning into reddit", while also reverting to personal insults. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Oh, I mean, it would be bad, even if it "just" meant no/unsafe launches and no LEO for X months/years. I just kinda feels it pales compared to the climate related problems coming generations are likely to face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) ... an ablative cascade would destroy nearly every satellite and would render ALL launches russian roulette with 5 chambers filled, and it would last for centuries. I really have no idea where you are getting your numbers from but there's ALREADY enough high velocity mass to make LEO a minefield for generations and we're not stopping launching. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Pulling them out of my ass, mostly. Like, the people I know in the field don't seem overly worried, but my own opinion mostly comes from a general awareness that stuff in LEO comes down eventually, and that for the orbit the Starlink Stuff is on, that would probably mean a few years max. Not my field, and if I actually research it, I might find I'm wrong. I still maintain that even a complete loss of launch and orbital capability, while of course a great and horrible disaster, wouldn't doom us much more than our current course as a species already is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm sorry but physics calculations have no room for opinion permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but you seem to also present an opinion, based on sentiment from your friends. Since we both seem to lazy to actually figure it out properly, I feel we're at an impasse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn't mean I'm bad at math. And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel. You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try The problem why you are unconvinced is you don't understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets. This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts. Ah, just like reddit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely. I think it's kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy "turning into reddit", while also reverting to personal insults. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) ... an ablative cascade would destroy nearly every satellite and would render ALL launches russian roulette with 5 chambers filled, and it would last for centuries. I really have no idea where you are getting your numbers from but there's ALREADY enough high velocity mass to make LEO a minefield for generations and we're not stopping launching. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Pulling them out of my ass, mostly. Like, the people I know in the field don't seem overly worried, but my own opinion mostly comes from a general awareness that stuff in LEO comes down eventually, and that for the orbit the Starlink Stuff is on, that would probably mean a few years max. Not my field, and if I actually research it, I might find I'm wrong. I still maintain that even a complete loss of launch and orbital capability, while of course a great and horrible disaster, wouldn't doom us much more than our current course as a species already is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm sorry but physics calculations have no room for opinion permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but you seem to also present an opinion, based on sentiment from your friends. Since we both seem to lazy to actually figure it out properly, I feel we're at an impasse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn't mean I'm bad at math. And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel. You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try The problem why you are unconvinced is you don't understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets. This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts. Ah, just like reddit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely. I think it's kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy "turning into reddit", while also reverting to personal insults. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Pulling them out of my ass, mostly. Like, the people I know in the field don't seem overly worried, but my own opinion mostly comes from a general awareness that stuff in LEO comes down eventually, and that for the orbit the Starlink Stuff is on, that would probably mean a few years max. Not my field, and if I actually research it, I might find I'm wrong. I still maintain that even a complete loss of launch and orbital capability, while of course a great and horrible disaster, wouldn't doom us much more than our current course as a species already is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm sorry but physics calculations have no room for opinion permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but you seem to also present an opinion, based on sentiment from your friends. Since we both seem to lazy to actually figure it out properly, I feel we're at an impasse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn't mean I'm bad at math. And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel. You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try The problem why you are unconvinced is you don't understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets. This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts. Ah, just like reddit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely. I think it's kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy "turning into reddit", while also reverting to personal insults. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm sorry but physics calculations have no room for opinion permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but you seem to also present an opinion, based on sentiment from your friends. Since we both seem to lazy to actually figure it out properly, I feel we're at an impasse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn't mean I'm bad at math. And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel. You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try The problem why you are unconvinced is you don't understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets. This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts. Ah, just like reddit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely. I think it's kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy "turning into reddit", while also reverting to personal insults. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Sure, but you seem to also present an opinion, based on sentiment from your friends. Since we both seem to lazy to actually figure it out properly, I feel we're at an impasse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn't mean I'm bad at math. And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel. You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try The problem why you are unconvinced is you don't understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets. This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts. Ah, just like reddit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely. I think it's kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy "turning into reddit", while also reverting to personal insults. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn't mean I'm bad at math. And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel. You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try The problem why you are unconvinced is you don't understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets. This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts. Ah, just like reddit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely. I think it's kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy "turning into reddit", while also reverting to personal insults. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely. I think it's kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy "turning into reddit", while also reverting to personal insults. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] orange_squeezer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago Thanks. I mean, it's not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don't think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up? Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, I feel like we're not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let's just agree to disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I already cited the initial paper I'm not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You did? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) if you won't even take the effort to follow a subthread why am I wasting my time replying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I just saw that I never replied to this. And all good sense would tell me to forget this. But the notification was looking at me so cheekily, so here we are. You haven't cited a paper. You linked an article in a popular science puplicarion that refers to a letter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent