I have a suspicion that we might see some interesting hybridization of the plant based and lab grown meats at some point. Tissue culture is expensive, and while Im sure the price can be reduced, Im doubtful that it will get cheaper than plant protein is. However, it can potentially taste more like real meat than plants, seeing as, well, it is real meat, just assembled differently. Potentially then, one can probably mix in some percentage of plant protein (or possibly mycoprotein as well) in with the meat in ground meat type products like burgers, without the flavor changing too noticeably, and get something mostly the same with a lower cost.

Eh, since going vegetarian in the past year or so, I’ve found that a lot of the meat substitutes actually are pretty good, depending on how you use them. It’s not usually so perfect that one cannot truly tell, sure, unless it’s a dish where the meat flavor is heavily affected by spices and similar like with chili, but I’ve definitely found types of substitute bacon, or burgers, or ground meat that taste quite good. Though in my experience it’s usually been the cheaper or simpler ones, like black bean burgers or tempeh bacon, that taste best. Not the same, but similar enough to be tasty in broadly similar ways.

From the light’s point of view, that distance should get reduced to zero due to length contraction anyway if I’m remembering correctly?

Cassini (misread your comment as “what are you talking about”)

Hey, it’s not Mars’s fault that Saturn destroyed it’s robot by burning it with it’s atmosphere…

Last time one of these threads popped up, I saw someone suggest that it might have been a holder for some of those bottles with pointed bottoms the Romans had, don’t remember the name. I’m not sure if this is a hypothesis with any level of acceptance, but it feels like it could be plausible just from looking at the thing, having different sized holes would allow different sizes of bottle to fit, and you’d want feet for each possible side that it could be resting on, which would explain the prongs.

Isn’t a lot of engineering basically applied physics though anyway? Just reversed, such that rather than studying or predicting how a physical system should behave, you’re trying to take what has been learned over time and use it to work backwards to create a system that exhibits desired behavior

I didnt really pivot to anything, I was very unsure what I wanted to do at that point, and being quite bad at learning virtually, which of course most everything had temporarily pivoted to at that time, I took an opportunity to move in with a family member in a different state that I liked better. Ive not gone back to school since as Ive been worried about spending a lot of time and effort and money on something that I cant see through to completion again or wont like using. Ive ended up working a low volume manufacturing type job at a company that makes measuring equipment (microscopes and spectroscopy devices and such like that), which Ive found tolerable enough as the work has some amount of variation, isn’t too physically or socially demanding, and at least has some scientific relevance (it doesn’t involve doing any science, but scientists cant do their work without the right equipment, so making some of that equipment still feels helpful in some small way). Ive thought about going back at some point if I can come up with something Im sure I’ll prefer doing, but so far have not and have no immediate plans.

If theres anything that I took away from my 3 years of trying to get a physics degree before burning out on it around covid hit, its that like half of physics seems to be just figuring out what approximations you can safely make to turn something infeasibly complicated into something that can actually be worked out

Gotta bait them with something…

The moon’s day length is so long that it wouldn’t make any sense for any crewed mission to use it, they’re going to need their own lights on an arbitrary 24 hour cycle anyway, so there’s no reason not to have every future crewed mission there use the same one

Basically any interest of mine, doesn’t matter what it is, I’ll easily end up rambling on and on about it if the conversation goes there. I tend to end up rambling to people I know about geckos a lot, with varying degrees of interest on their part.

Me, who misread the caption at first, who knows Plato is a philosopher

A time machine would necessarily need to have some way of defining what reference frame one is stationary in space relative towards, because there is no universal frame that everything moves relative to. This suggests that a time machine ought to let you move through space as well as time

If whales are smart enough to debate that, they probably have cultural memory of almost getting whaled to extinction. Which would make them like us less, but on the other hand, might make them afraid to get us too upset at them

Oh I wasn’t suggesting we should stop the pursuit. I just think it won’t be a magic bullet for solving our energy needs the way some proponents seem to suggest it will be.

That’s not really net energy gain from a practical standpoint. Technically yes, they get more energy than was present in their lasers, but those those lasers aren’t created perfectly efficiently, and so the actual electricity needed to create them still is much higher than the energy output of the reaction

Sure, but you’re not getting as much output from your panels as you could in total that way, making them less efficient overall. I’m not saying you can’t run a power grid on this stuff, just that the adaptations to use them in a grid effectively have costs, and those costs are not exclusive to capitalism

I’m personally very excited about how it does seem to be finally making progress if slowly, but realistically, I’m less convinced that it’ll be the solution to all our energy needs than many are. The physics of the process itself is very efficient, sure, but the kinds of machines needed to harness it are literally among the most expensive and complicated things built by humans, and they don’t even produce net energy yet. Granted, the cost of such things should be reduced once they are industrial machinery and not exotic scientific instruments loaded with experiments, but I’d bet that the reactors themselves will still be incredibly expensive and complex (and therefore have expensive maintenance). This doesn’t say good things about the actual cost of the resulting energy, even if the fuel is quite abundant. We could get abundant energy with a similarly high if not quite as much fuel efficiency with advanced fission reactors and fuel breeding, but the cost of those kinds of plants has been relatively prohibitive, and the costs of renewables has been falling. I could certainly see it possible for fusion to reach net energy, only to get used only on specialized roles or for base load power because solar panels end up being cheaper. In a sense this has already happened. It is theoretically possible, if not practically desirable, to use fusion energy in a power plant already, by detonating fusion explosives in a gigantic underground chamber full of water to heat it up, and harnessing the steam. Such ideas were considered during the cold war, but never developed, at least in part because it was calculated that they wouldn’t be cost competitive compared to other power options.

You can adapt to these inefficies, sure, but doing so still takes more planning and effort (in this case in carefully timing one’s phone charging, and in avoiding power using activities like that during non ideal times) than if there was no mismatch of availability and demand. It lessens the impact of the problem, but does not entirely remove it.