Ether

u/EtherTide@aussie.zone
1 posts · 56 comments

Recent posts

Recent comments

Very weird of me to comment 2 weeks in the making, but this comment gave me a worm brain for some reason, like I'm RFK or something. Based on the idea that something is solar powered if it has any involvement with the sun at all, I wondered if I could think of a way to tie all non-solar powered sources to the sun.

  • Tidal used solar tides, but non-tidal hydro can also be solar power if you consider that earth was formed in Sol's accretion disk and water likely comes from comets pulled into the solar SOI (none of this is researched, just off the dome, no clue whether my yr 10 astrophysics is either outdated or completely misremembered)
  • ergo, the use of earth's gravity to power turbines via waterfalls etc is also solar power.
  • Originally, I thought I had a gotcha with nuclear power, bc uranium DEFINITELY doesn't have anything to do with Sol, no trees involved. But, because it uses water, you can use the same logic as hydro
  • even for Voyager, which afaik just uses the heat directly sans water, you can say that the uranium itself was first attracted to Sol's SOI before either being deposited on earth by asteroids or included in the accretion disk during earth's formation. (tangentially, not sure how you make a fission reactor without steel, which uses organic hydrocarbons. Titanium?)
  • The formation of the earth also allows attributing thermal and wind power to Sol.

As a result of me realising I'm wrong despite desperately thinking I was right, I've decided to dedicate all 3 rubles in my possession to develop a power plant that only uses cosmic rays and other interstellar radiation (as well as neutrinos if I'm allowed to say theyโ€™re not really captured by the solar gravity well despite having mass, which I'm pretty sure I won't be allowed to do :c ) as well as fund interstellar colonisation efforts so that we can have extra-solar sun power, maybe hawking radiation and other fun stuff too. Escape the tyranny of the sun with me, brethren! Forego local Dyson-Swarms in favour of non-solar fossil fuels!

I learnt that in Sri Lankan, they don't really have the word Protestant in their vocabulary, so they just say Catholic and (implied non-Catholic) Christian. I imagine it's like that in a lot of parts of the world that's majority Christian, where Christian just becomes a word meaning denomination unspecified whilst Catholic is a whole other thing. Though I have also heard people say they thought Catholics did that count as Christians, due to misconceptions about worshiping Mary and the saints being disqualifying because "you shall have no gods before me".

What, then, is a third party launcher to you? How many launchers do you know of that allow you to launch games that you bought somewhere else? I can think of only that one Linux launcher I can't remember the name of. Maybe you would count GOG Galaxy, because you can add non GOG games to it, but I'm like 85% sure you can do the same thing on Steam.

I think that Steam IS a third-party launcher. It started as a first-party launcher for valve games. Nowadays, though, they (the third party) allow you (the first party) to buy and launch games from unrelated publisher and developers (the second parties).

The world wide web isn't the same thing as the internet. The internet is a network of computer networks, allowing your home network to INTERcommunicate (pls be a word so I don't look stupid) with your ISP's NETwork and in turn a globally interconnected network of computers. The world wide web is specifically a type of thing communicated over the internet. Don't 100% remember what counts as a webpage but I'm going to guess the wikipedia url and if I got it right then I'll have saved you looking it up yourself. IIRC it's just meant to be human-readable HyperTextMarkupLanguage (HTML) pages that you can view in your browser without having to download a file to your computer. Downloading a file is something you might do on an FileTransportProtocol website (ftp.example.com vs www.example.com).

The thing is, after everything I've said, it basically doesn't matter because in case you haven't noticed, lots of, if not most, websites omit the www. subdomain from their url. The reason for this is just because almost everyone who used the internet only cares about the web. Only very specific domains and users will communicate using an ftp, imap, git, etc subdomain. Not to say these types of sites and protocols aren't widely used, just that for eg imap, you're much more likely to go to a website like gmail.com, outlook.com, proton.me, etc (all of which are websites but ommit the www.) and then you will access the imap part of those sites via the website.

The only part of this comment that I'm reasonably confident I didn't get wrong is how little the difference between internet and web matters today, because almost every single time I went to talk about a non www site, I started writing "website" (instead of domain, site, url etc) and had to delete it to write something else instead.