Thorry84

Und dann kommt plötzlich ein Holländer angerannt und ruft GEKOLONISEERD

Sounds like a skill issue, fuck them kids

Yeah agreed I remember reading back then that 2020 would be peak, but we've sailed right past that and emissions were higher than predicted. And we've kept on increasing even with the covid dip pushing things down.

Well that's a perfectly valid question, thank you for asking. I think the key word here is "direct". He is totally right, there is no direct evidence of dark matter, regardless of what it exactly is. We have a bunch of observations that don't match up with our expectations and models. Where the difference could be explained by adding non EM interacting matter, it's categorized as being caused by dark matter.

Great examples for this are the rotation curves of galaxies and the Bullet cluster, but there are others. The interesting thing about the rotation curves is they are all different. Not only different from our expectations, but also different from each other. We can clearly see the rotations don't match up, but we can't see why this would be the case. Since they differ from each other, it seems like a physical thing which is different in each galaxy, rather the some fundamental systematic difference in reality from our models. With the Bullet cluster the same thing, looking at that thing it's clear something really weird is going on. It's hard to figure out what is happening, but it would be explained by some non EM interacting material, so it gets put down to dark matter.

But neither of these examples are direct observations of dark matter. Dark matter doesn't interact with em, but does seem to interact gravitationally. Since almost all of our observations of the universe are using EM radiation. Be it optical, ir, radio, xray etc. Since dark matter doesn't interact with EM seemingly in any way, we can't observe it. We can only model it based on things we can see.

So in that way the author is kinda reasoning in circles, there is no direct evidence because by definition we can't directly observe it. And I feel like inferring the existence of something based on other observations is perfectly valid. For example elements on the periodic table and the planet Neptune are well known examples (among many others) of something that fell out of models and were later confirmed. And since the observations don't match up, we know for sure there is something there regardless of what label gets put on it. It even might turn out there are several things combined that have the end result we see, although Occam's razor would have something to say about that.

There are several things we are trying to learn more about dark matter. For example giant gravitational wave detectors can help to figure some stuff out. But great progress is also made in WIMP detection systems. I feel both of these paths would qualify as "direct" detection, if any of these pan out.

The question is what exactly dark matter is, nobody knows at this point. We have a bunch of data and a lot of different ideas, but nothing that neatly explains everything.

The point was that the publication was questioning whether dark matter exists. It exists for sure, there is nobody who has seriously looked into it and thinks it doesn't exist. We don't know what exactly it is, but it exists. And we also know for sure the name sucks, but hey that's the name we're stuck with.

Like what the other comment said, dark matter is an observation, not a theory.

You are wrong, just look at rotation curves of galaxies for a very easy to understand example. It's right there.

Typical, scientist: "My paper does NOT say THIS". Press: "Scientist claims THIS!"

This headline is pretty dumb. Dark matter is not a myth, it's clearly there in the data, so it exists for sure. Now the name might be completely wrong as it's neither dark and may not be matter, but it still exists. We should have just called it Pete or something, so the name wouldn't imply anything about it's properties. But the press always seem to think dark matter is something thought up to fix something, but that's not the case at all.

The numbers in the data don't match up and the difference is what's labeled as "Dark matter", simply putting another label on it or dismissing it doesn't fix the underlying data not matching up. And it isn't like a fault in the data, we've seen it in ALL the data, no matter what you look at or how you look at it, the signs of dark matter can be seen.

For me being impressed with SpaceX is kinda like loving a piece of art even though the creator turned out to be an asshole. Or liking Star Trek, even though Berman was shady af to put it mildly.

What SpaceX does is very impressive from a technical point of view. Even if the rocket never amounts to anything except this one successful test, it's still amazing they pulled it off. It tickles my engineer brain. And I think it's worth to honor all the people that made it happen, despite them having to work for Musk. Combine this with what could be in the future and you can hopefully see why people hail this test flight.

Now I still have serious doubts about Starship in the moon program. The on orbit refueling seems very sketchy and unproven at this point. Sure they will get two rockets into orbit, mate them up and transfer some fuel, that's a given at this point. But how much fuel are we talking? And how fast does the turnaround need to be to prevent losing a lot of it? How many ships and how many launches? Will this completely offset the cheaper launch costs due to reusability? It's a huge unknown and will push back the moon program to well into the 2030s.

After fans dug into the lore they found out through a series of item descriptions and beta data the Naked Homer Simpson character was in fact gay. When Hidetaka Miyazaki was confronted by interviewers if he could confirm Naked Homer Simpson was in fact gay, he just smiled and said the fans could find out by looking at the boss fight closely. It turned out if you removed a piece of level geometry a rainbow heart could be seen with the initials H and S below. Thus confirming for once and for all Naked Homer Simpson was in fact gay.

Or at least that's what I remember from the 3 hour VaatiVidya video about it.

As so often with anything related to maths, pi pops out at the most unexpected places.

It can't hurt to give it more cooling capacity. But it probably doesn't matter much. It will run a a bit warmer with the sticker, but still be well within what the hardware can handle. Since it normally isn't a performance critical component, it won't run too hot and cooling it more gives no benefit.

All the same, I kinda hate it when they put a big heatsink on something and then cover it up with stickers. But the size of the heatsink is usually part of the marketing and not an actual design requirement.