Tlaloc_Temporal

It’s not that the program you’re running is malicious, but that it has an exploitable flaw. Because it’s a GUI app, a lot of things can touch it, which might be something malicious or something with another exploitable flaw.

There’s a flavor of bazzite made for developing now, Bazzite-dx

Don’t worry, it will grow bright enough to fry Earth in only 300 million!

Flamingoes dance in large groups: https://youtu.be/QLV_K7DVeyU

More like this situation, some male Manakin birds dance in pairs: https://youtu.be/GZ2ieF2Kuek

I’m not ok with calling him one of the good ones, but one of the somewhat decent ones seems about right.

Wow, Win98 logo and media buttons? Truely between eras.

I actually like the context key above the arrow keys, another method of effectively right-click is nice. Those Win keys are crazy though, that’s the perfect place for extra function keys. Imagine having f13 & f14 that you can bind to anything without worry!

Strangely enough, Bedrock is har to use on Linux. Java is so much better though.

It would be far better for certain organic compounds though. Increase the effectiveness of drugs, eliminate side-effects, drastically cheapen the production of many componds making new products feasible.

But yeah, already living things would probably die very quickly.

Carried itens put strain along the sholders and entire spine, and contribute to a high center of gravity. Waist mounted items (like this tail) put strain on only the hips and legs, and in the most stable way. I’d only be worried if there was a particular problem with hips or legs.

There was a lot of work done behind the scenes to make sure that all those systems still worked. Probably too much, but it did work.

So far, we haven’t seen a physical infinity in any part of the universe, so if our models produce a point of infinite anything, they’re probably wrong.

That definition means a planet has nothing to do with physical state, and everything to do with the proximity of your neighbors. We could promote the Moon to a planet by pushing it further away, or demote Earth from being a planet by slinging it a bit closer to it’s hungry uncle Jupiter. We could demote all planets by extinguishing the Sun! Then the entire system stops working and it’s all just asteroid or something.

That arbitrarily chosen definition doesn’t describe the object, only it’s place in the malleable hierarchy. With this, the title of planet tells us nothing about the object itself, except that it’s orbit is only dominated by a star.

Even worse, the IAU definition is extra arbitrary, as it only counts objects that orbit specifically the Sun, so the vast majority of bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium that don’t fuse hydrogen aren’t planets. They also play very lose with hydrostatic equilibrium, as Mercury isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium, yet is explicitly classified as a planet. And “clearing it’s orbit” is also rather indistinct, with no method to determine this is given. It’s up to argument if Neptune is a planet, as many plutoids intersect it’s orbit.

Even more worse, the barycentre of our solar system is sometimes outside of the sun! That means sometimes the Sun is co-orbiting with the rest of the solar system bodies, and therefore by this definition nothing is a planet! It’s a definition so arbitrary that it periodically stops existing!

I’m not just saying I disagree with the IAU here, but that their definitely is objectively poor, and poorly used. I agree that Pluto, Eris, Ceres, and many others should be in a different category from Jupiter, but make some categories that make sense, please!

Sounds like a sweat lodge. I don’t know how hot they get those normally.

Pluto and Charon orbit each other. The barycentre (the center of mass they both orbit) is far outside of Pluto. The Earth-Moon barycentre is still inside Earth, though this could be changed by moving the Moon further out.

Either way, Earth, the largest rocky planet, could be made into a moon by sending it to Jupiter, so I don’t think being a moon should disqualify a celestial body from being a planet.

There’s also plenty of classifications of plants based on form! Non-vascular plants, woody plants, herbaceous plants, algae and lichen…

Most of our “rocky” planets are pretty wet though. Mars is drying out, but Venus is caked with volatile chemicals and Earth is downright infected. Only Mercury is really barren, partly due to it’s small size. I could easily see three categories for gravitationally rounded bodies that can’t fuse hydrogen: Dry planets (usully smaller), Wet planets (usually larger), and Gaseous planets (gas giants).

Yeah, in MIB he has Agent K to play off of. MIB 3, where he’s the sole driver of the narrative, was a weak entry partly because of this.

He has plenty of good movies and is an objectively good actor, but I think his style needs to be used well, and i, Robot doesn’t quite hit it. Maybe if Dr. Calvin was a stronger character rather than a worrywort and source of romantic tension, I’d like his performance more.

Oh, that chemistry is great, but I don’t think he plays the investigator part well, especially when trying to follow the clues left by Dr Lanning. Will Smith’s style is very off the cuff and anti-authority, and while that works in MIB where there’s the very strict Agent K to play off of, I don’t think he works as the sole driver of a light mystery. Sonny and Spooner’s interactions are fantastic, but they’re usually driven by Sonny giving exposition. Spooner is usually just running from things as they unfold.

All in all, not a bad performance (there were plenty of objectively worse ones), but I don’t think it does the movie any favours. There are plenty of great things about i, Robot, but Will Smith is not one of them in my opinion.

I don’t particularly like his acting style, completely outside anything he does as a person. iRobot and Men In Black are some of his better roles, but like Jeff Goldblum or Eddy Murphy, he can only play himself. I don’t think it works in iRobot that well though, but that’s more of a casting choice than bad acting.

The crucifix is an implement of torture and execution, upon which the titular Christian god was executed to fulfill a blood oath. Executionists, torturers, blood magicians, nailers, death cultists, the forsaken (Psalm 22)…

Being shephered by a higher authority is also a common theme. Sheep is right there, although some actually use that directly.

Another common theme is the second arrival of their god, starting the end of the mortal realm and the death of all mortals. Death cultists again, apocalyptics, doomsdayers…

There’s lots of heinous things in their book, but most reject them or are unaware. You could call out lots of things there.

There were good parts in that movie, but Will Smith wasn’t one of them.