This is outdated, the soil quality has gone down in many places since 2018. So if you think this looks bad, reality is worse.

It’s an alien planet. Is there air? You don’t know.

There are plenty of missions right now. China has landed a rover on the moon this month. And multiple countries have satellites in orbit around the moon. Nasa has their Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which takes very high resolution images of the moon all the time and these are publiced on their website.

Multiple reasons:

Higher speed impacts penetrate deep, but also cause the rock to melt. This fills in deeper craters, limiting the max depth a crater can be. There are still very deep huge craters, but these look more like big depressions than craters, because of how big they are. They are also themselves covered with craters usually, making their size and shape harder to see.

Because the diameter of the moon is 3474km, a difference of several kilometers would only amount to a fraction of a percent. So even though one crater is for example 10km deeper than another, relative to the size of the moon this is practically nothing. When viewing pics like these where the whole moon is visible, this matters.

The moon is a very uniform gray color and lacks the indicators our brain use to gauge depth. This makes it very hard to guess how deep the different craters are. You can see some craters have more shadows where others don’t, but they are also different shapes and sizes and the lighting is different so it’s hard to see.

There is also probably some part of the speeds of incoming stuff being within a certain range and the moonrocks being relatively uniform in materials, so the range of craters than can exists is probably limited. But I’m not certain how big of an factor this is and what the range is.

What a strange headline. What was weird about the test? It seems a very straightforward and logical test to me?

The article also doesn’t specify what was weird about it.

I’d recommend reading this if you are interested in why making assumptions when designing a system is a bad idea (but often necessary): https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood

Especially the one on names: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ And the one on time: http://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time

The online for seamless coop isn’t actual online, it’s limited to the functionality of the mod and doesn’t use the official servers. You can in principle get cheaters on that, but most people have it setup to only connect to friends. And when you are using mods you are probably just having fun and playing for the memes instead of being a hardcore PvP player.

I personally love seamless coop, I had hoped FromSoft would have made the coop like that from the beginning. So happy mod makers are putting in the time to make it work. I’ve played over 100 hours with my brother and had so much fun. I can recommend mods like The Convergence as well, combined with seamless it’s so much fun.

These kinds of products are always scams.

All dehumidifiers and airconditioners can pull water out of the air when the air is very humid. This water isn’t very clean whilst in the air, as there is a lot of airborne pollution and bacteria in there. But with some simple treatment and filtering you could drink it. However the tray where the water collects is super dirty, it’s always moist and collects all the nasties in the air and the water. Those places are breeding grounds for all kinds of bacteria and if it doesn’t drain properly it’s a real health risk. Legionnaires disease was named after some old folk got sick due to a faulty aircon system. So getting water from the air is one thing, cleaning that water is a whole other ballgame.

Keeping devices like this clean is a hassle and usually requires a lot more water than it ever produces, not to mention the cleaner (usually some chlorine based thing) that goes down the drain and pollutes the planet. And if you don’t keep it clean, you have a major health risk. Often there are parts that are hard to get to, but get dirty anyways and are a pain to get to and clean properly. Especially since they need max surface area for the thing to work, but that means a lot of surface area to clean. And when that surface area is crammed into a small device, that means poor access.

Then there’s the simple fact it costs a LOT of energy to pull the water from the air and then more energy to clean that. It’s much easier to simply collect dirty water (for example ground water, surface water or even collected rainwater) and clean that water. This is just as easy to do as with the water pulled from the air, but without expending a lot of energy to collect the water. With a proper setup you can even put in salty sea water and get out clean drinking water. This works so well, most smaller islands get their drinking water from these kinds of setups that simply filter seawater (usually some kind of reverse osmosis setup is used).

The next issue is that these tiny devices are usually very inefficient due to their small surface area, where a large aircon system can pull out a lot of water with relative ease, these smaller devices can’t. And if you already have the aircon running, these devices can’t really compete and simply produce nothing at all. But let’s say you have a pretty humid home and don’t run an aircon or dehumidifier. Then the thing uses up a lot of energy, but pulls that water out of the air. But then what? Now the air is dry, so it’ll pull less and less water out of the air.

Then there’s the cost. As said these things use a lot of energy and you still need to clean the water after. This means the price per liter can be much higher than even bottled water. If the water you get from the centralized system in your area isn’t clean enough, consider a setup to clean that, it will still be cheaper than the water this thing gets. Even in places where there isn’t any water nearby and a central system isn’t available, it’s cheaper to ship the water by truck (either in large containers like a 1000L IBC, or with a tanker truck). This costs a lot of money, but is still cheaper than getting it from the air.

These kinds of devices have been around for decades and never work. It’s a dumb concept to begin with and often the marketing is even dumber.

Bonus dumb points for marketing these things for arid poor areas for people who don’t have any water. Those people don’t have the money to buy them, don’t have the money to run or maintain them. And they don’t even work in arid areas anyways, since there is no moisture in the air to pull out. And just a friendly reminder, the only reason those people don’t have water is because they are poor. Because they are poor, they can’t buy water, and since this world runs on capitalism: If there is no buyer there is no product.

I like to think of it in this way: What we call dark matter isn’t the cause/source, but the discrepancies we’ve seen in our observations/data. So anybody who says dark matter doesn’t exist is plain wrong, the discrepancies are there plain as day. And it isn’t a single thing, it’s many discrepancies in a lot of data. Now the name is probably not as good, as it isn’t clear it’s actually matter and it isn’t dark but simply doesn’t interact with EM radiation. So we can’t “see” it directly, only indirectly. The name is so poor, it leads to a lot of miscommunications. But the fact is, the data doesn’t match up. So there has to be something there. And that’s data going back almost 100 years.

Just like I said about gravity. There’s dark matter, the real thing that exists and we can “see”. And then there’s the theory of dark matter, the how and why, the thing we haven’t figured out yet.

Yes very good point!

“That’s just a theory, a game theory!” won’t fly on your PhD defense.

People always confuse multiple things.

There is gravity, the actual effect we see every day all around us. Gravity is a real thing, it exists. Then there’s the law of gravity, this is a math formula you can use to predict the effect gravity has on things. There’s multiple variations of this one, think Newton and Einstein. For almost everything the Newton version works just fine. Then there’s the theory of gravity, this is our attempt to explain why gravity exists and why it does the things it does. This is the tricky one we don’t really have a grip on.

By mixing these things it is often portrayed that “scientists” don’t know anything, they don’t even understand something as simple as gravity.

The lights are on, but there’s nobody home

3** status codes: 4000%

Oops

Agreed, removed

Good advice, just to add to this:

• Comments should be part of code review, having at least two pairs of eyes on comments is crucial. Something that’s obvious to one person maybe isn’t so obvious to another. Writing good comments is as hard or harder than writing good code, so having it checked for mistakes and quality is a must
• Comments aren’t the actual documentation and aren’t a reason not to write documentation to go along with your code. Often I see larger projects where each class and function is documented in comments, but the big picture and the how and why of the overall structure is completely missing. Remember that in the real world you often have a lot of folk that need to understand how the code works, who aren’t programmers themselves. They can’t read the code or don’t have access to the code. Writing documentation is still important.
• Please for the love of god when you change code, check if the comments need to be updated as well. Not just around the immediate area, but also the entire file/class and related files. I’ve worked on large codebases before with a high wtf factor and having the code do something different to or even opposite the comments is a nightmare. I’d rather have no comments than wrong comments.

Please go watch this if you want to really know what geology is all about: https://youtu.be/akQ2JpglmEo

And go watch all of this channel, she is great at explaining complicated stuff in a really easy to understand but still correct way.

True, but it was definitely broken by the time the landing burn commenced. So it’s hard to see where it failed. I think the other fins must have done much better, otherwise it would have totally lost control. The telemetry did get weird at one point, but it’s hard to say if that was just an error in the data or actually happening.

Note that besides the fins they added more cold gas thrusters this time, so a loss of one or more fins wouldn’t mean loss of control like with the previous attempt.

I also think the connection between the fin and the inside didn’t fail and held up well. I remember from Space Shuttle that a small defect in the heatshield meant a stream of superheated air blasted in like a plasma cutter and destroyed the insides, even in parts where the heat shield was just fine. But with this flight on Starship it seamed like the fin burned away, but the inside was fine, otherwise I think it would have blown up. It even seamed like the fin moves after a lot of it was burned up, so that would mean the motors and control systems were still working. But I’m still not sure at what point it failed, some of the movement could be due to atmosphere with it hitting the end stops, so it looked like a controlled movement to a certain point.

Very interesting and cool nonetheless.

Edit: Just rewatched and you can see at 1:04:22 it makes a move which is very fast. At this point I feel it’s broken and every movement we see is due to the thing shaking around in the atmosphere. But somehow with the thrusters and other fins that may have faired better it maintains control. It really was the little Starship that could.

I’m not sure it did actually work. When the landing burn kicked in it folded all the way over, so the movement we saw earlier might not have been intentional movement but just the thing moving as the atmosphere was pounding it.

This was the most sci-fi shit I ever saw in my life and it was real, it was a great thing to see. Hopefully next flight it can fly to an actual location and have it land within sight of a fleet of ships.

Well no, if you think that I’ve failed to communicate it properly. Sorry for that. I mean the exact opposite.

Say for example we have some unit of knowledge called T. The moon has in this hypothetical unit about 1000T of possible knowledge and humans know about 900T of things about the moon. In this case the oceans would have at least 1000000T of possibility knowledge and humans know about 800000T. We thus know much more about the oceans than we could even ever know about the moon.

You might argue that we know 90% about the moon and only 80% about the oceans and thus know less about the oceans than the moon. But this fails on three parts:

First of all, we can’t know what we don’t know. So whilst we might guess the moon has somewhere around 1000T of total knowledge, we can’t know this for sure. This means talking about percentages makes no sense. We can only say with some certainty there is orders of magnitudes more to learn about the oceans than there is about the moon.

Second of all, we can estimate the total number of knowledge about the moon is a relatively low order of magnitude compared to the order of magnitude of total knowledge possible about the oceans. This means the percentage is meaningless as even relatively little knowledge leads to a high percentage.

Third of all, knowledge isn’t linear. There is always low hanging fruit that can be learnt with little efforts and says a lot about what a thing is. Then as it is studied further, more details emerge which fill in the gaps. The gaps in knowledge get smaller and smaller, and the overall picture stays more and more the same. As I said we’ve studied the overall structure of the ocean and focused down where interesting stuff is.

Thus comparing knowledge based on percentages makes little sense.

These kinds of things are often used to justify things that aren’t grounded in reality. Such as the lost civilization. It’s in the same vain as something having a non zero chance of happening means it can happen. For example there is a non zero chance your atoms scatter within the next nanosecond. It’s theoretically possible but can’t happen in the real world.

Hope this makes more sense to you.

Yes, but the post was specifically about the moon?