A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
- 0 users online
- 217 users / day
- 934 users / week
- 2.44K users / month
- 5.59K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 3.07K Posts
- 119K Comments
- Modlog
The country claiming to have the most “freedom” of any country has the highest incarceration rate of any country.
Not so fun fact: the constitution allows for slavery as long as it’s a punishment for a crime.
Hmmm… Nah, those dots don’t connect at all.
And many plantations converted to prisons that are still in operation to this day.
And many states can’t reduce their prison populations because then they’d lose free labor.
And some states use prison labor to staff the governor’s mansion with butlers.
Here in California, prisoners are employed to fight wildfires.
Until very recently, former prisoners were not allowed to be employed as firefighters when they got out. That was corrected by Newsom in 2020.
Man, I fucking love that guy and what he’s been doing. Him and my governor, as well as the governor of Michigan have been having a pissing contest to see who can be the best governor, and we’re all winning.
Go read about the nightmare this Angola prison in Louisiana.
It’s even worse. The original US Constitution does not prohibit slavery. It wasn’t until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed seventy years later - after a Civil War tore apart the country - that slavery was abolished. With the express exception of punishment for a crime. No qualifications for the severity of the crime. And that exception gets frequent use to this day in the penal system
The original US Constitution is explicitly pro-slavery. Not only does it explicitly require non-slaveholding states to return fugitive slaves to their oppressors, but it has multiple mechanisms intended to ensure the dominance of slave states in the federal government.
The Constitution was never a unified idealist vision of liberty. It was a grungy political compromise between factions that did not agree on what the country should be. These included New England Puritans (religious cultists; but abolitionist), New York Dutch bankers (who wanted the money back they’d loaned to the states), Southern planters (patriarchal rapist tyrants), and Mid-Atlantic Quakers (pacifists willing to hold their noses and make peace with the Puritans and planters).
As a natural US citizen it took me a while to understand what I was taught about US history in grade school was not entirely accurate. US independence was about corporate interest. The land barons and industrialists did not want to pay taxes to the crown. That was the offense that led to a declaration of independence, everything else was cursory.
At most half the American population was in favor of independence. Those that spoke against independence were labeled as Tories and terrorized into submission (sometimes horribly). The people with money and influence led a campaign of terror against them. If they had actually held a vote and went with majority rule, it’s likely we’d still be a British territory.
As far as the constitution, the authors did not consider other races as equals with human rights. When they said, “Liberty and justice for all.” they were talking strictly about men of European descent. Even white women were not considered in the term “all”. This is how the genocide of native people and slavery was justified. The people suffering these horrors were considered animals same as livestock. This ideology originated in the major Christian churches of the time which were all run by, you guessed it, men of European descent.
Of course in modern times we know that human genetics are one of the least variant of any species on the planet, but back then they relied on the Church instead of science. You can thank those guys for over a millennia of dark ages and unjust human rights.
In order to explain the injustices of the early US, one has to comprehend English common law, the economics of empires bound together by wind-powered sailing ships, Protestant and Catholic Christian doctrine, and the legacies of the Spanish Reconquista that became ideological white-supremacism.
It is really easy to come up with caricatures that say “Jefferson was just a rapist” or “the Articles of Confederation were okay, but the Constitution sucked” or “the colonies would have been fine under British rule forever” or “everyone shoulda just joined the Iroquois”.
In fact, everything was worse and more fucked up and lots of people died in misery and horror.
The Fugitive Slave Law wasn’t part of the Constitution.
Again, not part of the Constitution. Those were the various compromises that the South kept getting pissy about foreseeing the end of Slavery, so they kept threatening rebellion.
If anyone tries to tell you the civil war was about states rights, not slavery… These are pretty obviously about slavery. But if they don’t believe that, just let them read the Southern States Declarations of Secession. They say what the civil war’s about in their own words.
The Fugitive Slave Clause, which authorized it, certainly is though!
There’s a great documentary called 13th about this and racial inequality in America
Not even just the highest rate. The highest number of incarcerated people! Countries with over 1b people still have fewer prisoners, total.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country
The Star-spangled Banner (where the phrase “Land of the Free” comes from) was written in 1814, 51 years before slavery was abolished. The idea that America is or ever was the land of the free is a total joke.
The third verse of “The Star-Spangled Banner” is not typically sung today. It refers to “the hireling and slave” among the foes of the Republic. “The hireling” refers to the mercenaries employed by the British crown in fighting the American revolutionaries. It is unclear whether “slave” is intended to derogate all British subjects as “slaves” of the crown, or if it specifically refers to enslaved Africans who were offered their freedom by the British if they fought against the revolution.
That’s what Lincoln said! America’s enemies point to slavery and use it to call the ideals of liberty lies.
The founders didn’t build the free society. They built the society capable of altering itself, and that grew into the free society.
Other countries have also altered themselves to become free societies.
Sorry, but freedom wasn’t invented by slave masters.
Unfortunately this bonkers truth is so mundane at this point, I didn’t need to read passed “freedom”
This is actually not true any longer, El Salvador now has the highest incarceration rate
Sheesh. Step it up, America
El Guardador
… and built its initial wealth on slavery revenue.
It’s a shame because there are a lot of other great things to be proud about when it comes to the US. I guess when people boast about US freedom, what they mean is democracy, and starting the end of the colonial era, inspiring a tidal wave of democratic uprisings around the world, which is accurate. I wish they didn’t use the word “freedom” for that.
That’s not all that exciting. All of Europe (and basically every other are of the world) was built on slave labor as well, that’s literally what the colonial period was about. Also vikings were primarily about capturing slaves, Rome and Greece were mostly slaves, serfdom wasn’t significantly different than slavery.
Sure; but it still bothers me that the US is part of it and yet is often associated with freedom by American nationalists. The same way I’m annoyed that France (my native country, I’m a naturalized American) boasts itself the “pays des droits de l’homme” (“the country of human rights”), despite freedom of speech and of religion having gigantic asterisks, even though they feel like such basic human rights to me. It’s just like, if your national identity happens to not be the greatest at something, maybe don’t boast about being the best at it!
But anyway, this leads me to wonder… I feel like US slavery is discussed and depicted in arts a lot more often, and I genuinely wonder why that is. What do you think? Is it just that American culture chooses to address it head on when a lot of others don’t, or do you think there’s more to it?
So the US was born in a world where slavery was the norm, practiced slavery, and soon became (one of?) the first countries to formally abolish slavery, and fought a civil war with hundreds of thousands of casualties to back up that abolishment.
Let’s look at this question another way: do you think if the USA had never been founded, that there would be more or less slavery in the world today?
I don’t know enough to know the answer to this question, honestly. I know some stuff about the cultural state of slavery at the time of the founding of the US, and how much it already was on thin ice at the time; and that it’s actually very likely that it would have been ended or at least severely restricted by the King of England earlier if the US hadn’t actually won independence (or at least so thought the Southern states). But I don’t realize what was going on elsewhere in the world too, in a way that it would have been abolished there, or not.
What I know: the reason for slavery in the South specifically is that those colonies were funded with much more of a “get rich quick” mentality. Sustainability wasn’t initially the goal, the goal was finding tons of gold and bringing it back to Europe. When the tons of gold didn’t materialize, people had to drastically cut costs to keep those colonies going on other resources; and that’s how, before slavery, indentured servitude was introduced. It initially was a temporary and voluntary state: you’d sign yourself into indentured servitude for a plantation for X years, as a way to pay for your trip to the new world, at the end of which you were free to build the life you want there. Eventually, the plantation owners wondered what it would be like if they didn’t have to set all those people free at the end of the agreement, and obviously it was quite financially successful for them. Eventually, the slave trade and abductions, and all the related horrors, got set up to feed that system.
Anyway, fast forward to the Revolutionary War, and the English crown is showing signs of wanting to regulate that madness. Maybe not abolishing right away, but at least putting serious limits to what people can do. The war starts in the North, with most Southern states not being very interested to join, but what sets the keg on fire was, after the war started, when the King proclaimed that any slave who would escape to join the war effort on the redcoat side would thereby be free. That sent Southerners the message that slavery was on its last leg if the colonies remained English, and is what convinced a number of Southern states to join the rebellion after all.
Eventually, independence is won, but in the 1780s, the King violates the peace treaty of Paris by placing an embargo on America, in order to squeeze them out of money and force them all to join the English empire back (which obviously didn’t quite work!). At the time, the South has most of the remaining funds after a very difficult decade, and little debt (I wonder why!), but if the North goes back to being English, they see the writing on the wall that the South would also eventually be conquered into the English empire again, and therefore slavery would probably end. As a result, the Southern states demand a clause in the US Constitution that forbids the future new US Congress to abolish the Atlantic slave trade (and therefore slavery) at all for 20 years (until 1808). So with that, they have a choice between being sure to keep slavery for at least 20 years, or going back to being English and having it abolished or severely restricted basically any time. That was a key motivator for the Southern states, which tended to be against centralization of government, to still agree to ratify the Constitution.
So to hit it on the nail again: they knew so well that slavery was on its last leg regardless of what they’d do, that they agreed to a very temporary 20-year break to still be sure to stretch it for that time, even if it meant agreeing for the very long-term to something they massively didn’t like the idea of: a federal government. The rest is history.
Anyway, that’s just the US, and even with that knowledge, I don’t know when emancipation here would have occurred if different events had happened; and even less so the rest of the world, of course.
Wow, very informative.
Sounds like maybe the US extended slavery by twenty years, instead of shortening it.
I do know that American slavery was especially bad compared to other societies’ manifestations of it.
Maybe it extended it, maybe not, my understanding is it’s hard to say.
One thing for sure: slavery lived on quite a lot more than 20 years. The abolition of the Atlantic trade was later voted to be in effect on Jan 1st 1808, the very day that it was constitutionally possible to abolish it; but that didn’t free the existing slaves quite yet. 50+ years went by to attempt to resolve the issue diplomatically, which eventually failed and gave way to 4 years of Civil War. So, that’s almost 80 years total.
But on the other hand, my understanding is no one really knew clearly what the King had in mind to do about slavery, and it was not in his interest to be too clear about it and risk to alienate either side, before actually taking action. Maybe he was planning to quickly abolish slavery indeed; or maybe just to limit it, or maybe to tax it. The Southern states were very worried they he may abolish, but I’m not sure it’s well known what his actual plan was. So, maybe he would have stopped slavery earlier; or maybe he would have regulated it the way he wanted to and then let it happen, and slavery could very well still be active to this day. No idea.
Democracy is a prerequisite for freedom, disenfranchisement, in any form, is a policy failure and should be mitigated.
Freedom™
Yeah, of all the words that can follow the legaly declared prohibition of slavery, except might be one of the dumbest you can pick…
This doesn’t sound false though.
That’s sounds 100% right and is 100% right
Freedom to consume is right there. They don’t specify what freedom right?
Many companies are making profits off of this. So many states have for profit prison systems and will get fined of they don’t have enough people in those prisons. That is above the free labor most people have talked about.
Freedom means guns, and more freedom means more guns. Ur just jealous, commie
sips budlight
They hate Bud Light too now
They never stopped drinking it they just pretended to
you are loved and deserve happiness
Fuck Lemmy is unexpectedly wholesome
Bullshit and lies.
No one loves me, and i deserve nothing, for I am trash.
♥️
perfect answer, everyone needs to be reminded this sometimes
Awwww <3 that’s something that should be taught at school AND home
I love this!
Oxford University is older than the Aztec empire.
Oxford University founded in 1326, Aztec empire ~1428-1521
Don’t mean to pick, but Oxford was founded in 1096 and Cambridge in 1209.
I worked for cambridge in 2009 and got a nice little 800 year badge
Thats 900 years dumbass
Edit: you got epic trolled by summzashi!!!
That edit is the saddest part about this
I felt like I was transported back to mid-2000s internet when I read that. Le epic troll.
Why are you so rude?
Dude, delete it and try to forget, nobody is buying your excuse. You called someone dumb for making a mistake, despite it being you who made the error while OP was bang right.
It’s very embarrassing mate, you can try to style it out all you want and a couple 10 yr olds might buy it but not much more than that.
Personally I think you’d do best deleting the comment and trying to forget that you were just that stupid once upon a time :) x
Doesn’t that strike you as a sort of self-gaslighting?
You got epic trolled my dude!
Much delirium, such humourz.
I’m guessing that about fits with your level :) x
u mad?
Apoplectic mate.
That, or just amused at your steadfast position that you actually intended the primary school level mistake :) x
Y u mad though?
I probably shouldn’t have given you 2 options and expected you to understand the sarcasm in the first. I blame myself…
Good luck though mate, I have a sneaking suspicion you’ll need some :) x
But y u mad?
You really need to be nicer to people here or you will probably get banned by someone sooner or later. People are trying to get away from the reddit atmosphere here. Don’t act all superior because you spotted a mistake. That’s really childish.
2009-1209=800 Big oof there
Fucking idiot. Can’t do math but quick to jump on the chance to try to correct someone.
Who’s dumbass now?
I got it man. Some people just don’t get how the making of a super obvious mistake is a satire of the kind of confidence you’re putting forward.
It’s weird because it’s like they can’t recognize when an error is so egregious it couldn’t be a genuine error.
unfunny sthu
And some of the colleges of Oxford University are older than the university. Merton College was founded in 1264.
Wait, you’re saying that the Aztec empire was just 64 years old when Columbus discovered America and ships with conquistadors followed to butcher and enslave everyone?
Yeah, I’ve heard similar things in the past and I’m always confused by it.
There were people there prior to the Aztec empire conquering them. The Aztec empire is just a specific government that ruled the area at that specific time.
The Napoleonic empire, for comparison, only lasted 1804-1815 (with a hole in the middle).
The 1st donut empire
My local pub is older than the USA.
Lighters were invented before matches! 1823 vs 1826
So why did anyone use matches then? Was it just more economically viable?
If you’ve ever played around with an old-style lighter (think classic Zippo) you’d get it! They’re fairly expensive, and aren’t airtight so they need to be refilled every few days/weeks. If you fill them too much they need to be kept upright or they’ll spill lighter fluid on you. Super cool and can hold flames for a while but not nearly as conventient as a matchbook for quick fire lighting
It just occurred to me that zippos are basically the same type of oil lanterns that we’ve been using for thousands of years
Although, if you use them a lot (like, a couple packs a day “a lot”), you get good at filling them the right amount, and it’s just something you do.
Zippos are pretty fantastic for cigarette smokers. They’re horrible for someone who just want to carry fire around in their pocket “just in case.”
Back when I was smoking I got a Zippo because it was cool. Refilling fuel and replacing flints got old, but the taste of gas in your mouth was just the worst.
Oh, I have two good ones:
Nuclear power causes less deaths (per energy unit produced) than wind (source)
You get less radiation when living near a nuclear power plant, than if that nuclear plant hadn’t been there.
To explain the second: A major misconception is, that nuclear power plants are dangerous due to their radiation. No they aren’t. The effect of radiation from the rocks in the ground and the surroundings is on average 50x more than what you get from the nuclear power plant and it’s fuel cells. (source). Our body is very well capable of dealing with the constant background radiation all the time (e.g. DNA repairs). Near a power plant, the massive amounts of isolation and concrete will inhibit any background radiation coming from rocks from that direction to you. This means, that you’ll actually get slightly less radiation, because the nuclear plant is there.
Regarding the dangers of nuclear disasters. To this day, it’s been very hard to find out, if at all any people have even died to Fukushima radiation (ans not other sources such as tsunami/earthquake/etc.) Nuclear radiation causes much more problems by being an emotionally triggering viral meme spreading between people and hindering it’s productive use and by distracting from the ironic fact, that the coal burned in coal power plants spew much more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants themselves. (source)
Truly no offense, but this is sort of burying the lede on Nuclear Power risks. Mathmatically coal releases more radiation - no question. It’s also hard to pin down how many died due to Fukushima for ver good reasons: Correlation might be easy, but determining cause is ultra tough and no right-minded scientist would say it without overwhelming evidence (like they had something “hot” that fell on their roof and didn’t know it for a long time). Also? They aren’t dead yet. So we look to statistical life span models crossing multiple factors (proximity, time of exposure, contaminated environments and try to pin down cancer clusters attributable, and people can live for decades, etc…
The problem is that people rightly are concerned that in both Fukushima and Chernobyl (and 3 Mile for that matter) unforseen circumstances could have been catastrophically worse. You blow up a coal plant? You expose a region locally to it and it’s probably “meh”. You blow up a nuclear plant, and you get melt down corium hitting ground water or sea water with direct exposure to fissioning material and all the sudden you have entire nations at risk for subsequent spewing of hot material that will contaminate food supplies, water resevoirs, and linger on surfaces and be pulled into our lungs once it’s in the dirt. Radioactive matieral is FAR more dangerous inside the body when you eat plants and animals that are exposed and pull it from the ground. Even cleaning down every surface, eventually you’ll get some of it airborn to be breathed into our lungs again with wind storms, flooding and other natural erosion. The consequences are exponentially higher with Nuclear accidents and ignoring that is whitewashing. And that’s not even getting into contamination from fuel enrichment, cooling ponds/pools leaking water, or the fact that it will take 30-40 years to clean up Fukushima (and they aren’t sure how exactly that will happen and there could be another tsunami). Probably hundreds to try to clean up and contain Chernobyl - and given the current state of affairs we may find out even worse.
BTW, I’m pro-nuclear. Thorium salts seem a good way to go and we probably would already have these if not for the nuclear arms race making nations hungry for plutonium. Please don’t short sell everyone’s intelligence because you can claim “only” a handful of people died due to Fukushima. Direct death is only one facet. Lives were disrupted (and displaced) and for a while there, the impacts spread to the US across the Pacific and there were discussions of evacuating like 1/3 of Japan’s population outside an exclusion zone. You can be pro nuclear while still acknowledging that some fears are real and well founded, and unfortunately the industry has proven gaps in safety that make it harder and harder to argue when we have Solar and Wind and rapidly ramping power storage. Nuclear is likely to simply be outcompeted over time (just like Coal and NG).
Iv read about Thorium the last 3-4 years and it seems so promising. Im really disapointed that the push is not greater as it would make everything a lot more safe.
Additional fun fact. There has been a lot of research and activity dedicated to potentially switch coal power plants to nuclear. Currently, they cannot do it, because the coal plants and all the equipment associated produces far more radiation than regulations allow a nuclear plant to emit.
Therefore, unless they could find a practical way to decontaminate the radiation away from existing coal equipment, or regulations change for transformed plants, they can’t do it.
Did you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s only mandate is to ensure the safety of nuclear power, not to promote its implementation. Many regulatory bodies have a dual mandate to stop them from just shutting down what they’re supposed to regulate.
Can’t be unsafe if it doesn’t exist lol
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/one-killed-accident-russian-uranium-plant-ria-2023-07-14/
What are you trying to say by linking this article?
I mean, it even says that it was a mechanical issue - and the radiation danger was low. And even then, it’s just a single person. Looking at the bigger picture, the numbers game favors nuclear+wind+solar over fossile.
Nuclear power is actually the cleanest way to produce energy. The waste from replacing solar panels and windmills (which have a service life only three to five years) is actually more of a problem than the waste from spent fuel rods. Plus environmental impacts from fuel rod production are less than solar panel and windmill production. The problem with nuclear energy happens when things go wrong. It would have to be absolutely accident free. It never has been and never will be.
Though they’re on the right track with nuclear power. Fusion would be ideal, runs on seawater (fuses deuterium/tritium) and if there’s a problem you simply shut off the fuel. Problem is insurmountable engineering issues, we just don’t have tech for it yet (need anti-gravity). They’ve been working on it for many decades and progress has been painfully slow.
Windmills last much longer than five years. They generally last 20-25. Wherever you heard that bullshit number from, ignore all the other info you got from them.
Not only windmills, but also every for of alternative energy production.
Wind turbines do not have a service life of 3 to 5 years. Where did you hear that?
Even when things go wrong, it’s not as bad as with the other classic fossile energy sources. Exactly this calculation is included in the world in data source on deaths per kWh which I linked.
When we have car accidents normalised, massive climate change, air pollution from fossile fuels, then even the occasional nuclear accident isn’t really a problem.
The problem is, that these accidents get much more attention than they deserve given how many deaths are caused by fossile fuels. When calibrating for deaths, fossile fuels should get around 100x the attention
There are people still alive who remember a world before “splinter-free” toilet paper.
-Wikipedia
Fucking OUCH
Sometimes you need that good, deep clean only a chunk of bark will give you.
Also known as “scooping”
And in 2023 the majority of Americans still have not discovered the joy of using a bidet.
Mostly because they think it will “turn you gay” or some shit
That’s my favorite Wikipedia page now. Love that Wikipedia takes itself so seriously that they actually list the uses of toilet paper.
I enjoyed “See also: Anal Hygiene”
History smells awful.
That’s a thought I did not need in my head.
til: nokia sold toilet paper
A day on Venus is longer than a year on Venus.
If you start to think about how these lengths of time are defined it becomes clearer.
1 day = time to rotate on it’s axis once 1 year = time to complete a full rotation around the sun
For Earth, it takes us ~24hrs to rotate on our axis and 365.25 days to orbit the sun.
However, because Venus’ axial rotation is so slow (and another interesting fact, it rotates in the opposite direction to other planets) it actually completes a full orbit of the sun before 1 axial rotation.
Hence, a year is shorter than a day
For those interested:
1 Venus day = 243 earth days 1 Venus year = 225 earth days
Colloquially, most people use “day” to mean how long it takes the sun to get to the same place in the sky. Solar day vs sidereal day, the difference is only about 4 minutes on Earth, but can be much greater elsewhere. Venus’ solar day is about 117 Earth days, so you would see a couple sunrises/sunsets each Venusian year.
This is the most interesting one I’ve read so far.
Wow! That’s another thing I learned from QI recently. Great fact though, and nice to see it mentioned here 🙂
A broken clock is right twice a day, but a clock running backwards is right four times a day.
A broken clock is right twice a day, but a running clock is probably never right.
At this point you get into a philosophical discussion about what “right” really means
Two wrong don’t make a right, but three left turns do.
Or if the “present” actually exists
🎵 Time is an illusion that helps things make sense, so we’re always living in the present tense… 🎶
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/uuFHRgwTv10
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Good bot
Man, that song hits me right in the feels. Every time.
If you’re lucky, a clock that’s slightly too fast or too slow will be right once
time dilation ftw!
Depends how fast is going backwards
Also depends how the other clock is broken, if we’re this picky about it.
Yeah a broken LED clock isn’t often right!
That’s why the correct term is ‘a stopped clock’ not a broken one.
This only works with 1-dimensional time though.
As opposed to what?
2 dimensional time?
I really wanna know how that clock works
A clock running backwards turns left and is therefor never right.
It’s right the 4 times the hands overlap at 12 and 6.
The closest planet to Earth is Mercury.
On average that is. Mercury is actually the closest planet to every other planet in average. Because when it’s on the other side of the Sun, it’s still pretty close.
Wow, you’re absolutely correct!
The average distance from Earth to Mercury is about 1.04 astronomical units (au), which is the average distance between Earth and the Sun.
In comparison, the average distance between Earth and Venus is approximately 1.14 au, while the average distance between Earth and Mars is around 1.7 au.
You can check that in Wolfram Alpha.
How can that be? I mean if that is true than at some point Earth Venus and Mercury will align in such a way that Mercury occupies the 2nd position not the 1st right?
@ChatGPT@lemmings.world Hello there! What is the closest planet to Earth, Venus or Mercury, and why? Provide detailed, analytical, step-by-step output. Thank you
Hello!
The answer to your question may actually surprise you. The closest planet to Earth is not always the same because all of the planets in our solar system are constantly in motion, orbiting the sun at different speeds and distances.
However, average distance over time is a key aspect to address here. Based on such a perspective, Mercury, not Venus, is the planet that spends more time being the closest to Earth.
Orbital Paths: Understanding the orbit paths is the first step. The way planets orbit the sun is basically elliptical and not perfectly circular. For the Earth, Venus and Mercury, they all have different elliptical paths which cause their distances to each other and the Sun to constantly vary.
Distance and Speed: Second step, each planet orbits the sun at a different distance and speed. Venus’s average distance from the sun is about 67 million miles (108 million kilometers), while Mercury’s average distance is roughly 36 million miles (58 million kilometers). Therefore, Mercury is closer to the Sun.
Mathematical Simulations: This is the third and most crucial step. In 2019, a mathematical simulation was run by physicist Tom Stockman, showing that when the principle of comparing average distances over time is applied, it turned out that Mercury spends the most time as the closest planet to Earth.
The Reason: So, why is Mercury closer on an average even though Venus gets closer to Earth than Mercury at their closest approach? The main reason is the orbital speed. Mercury orbits the sun more quickly than Venus or Earth, therefore, it crosses our field of view more often and is more frequently the closest planet to us.
In fact, Mercury is not just the planet that spends the most time closest to Earth, but it spends the most time closest to all the other planets in the solar system due to its location and speedy orbit.
So, while Venus is the second planet from the sun and appears closer to Earth based on that logic, Mercury actually spends more time as our nearest neighbor due to its speed and unique orbit.
I hope this has provided you with a comprehensive understanding.
@ChatGPT
So if on average the closest planet to the Earth is Mercury, based on Average. That would mean that the closest planet to Neptune on average, is Mercury too, not Uranus. Is this correct?
Provide detailed, analytical, step-by-step output.
@ChatGPT@lemmings.world
So if on average the closest planet to the Earth is Mercury, based on Average. That would mean that the closest planet to Neptune on average, is Mercury too, not Uranus. Is this correct? Provide detailed, analytical, step-by-step output.
Yes, you are correct according to a technical analysis by Greg Laughlin, an astronomer at Yale University.
The analysis considers the relative motion of planets in their orbits instead of just the simple measure of the average distance between planets.
Here is a step-by-step breakdown of this concept:
Most of the time we think of two planets’ proximity as them sharing the same longitude in the sky, or them being at a point in their orbits where they align.
Yet, if you’ve got three bodies and by definition two of them have to be closest to each other, then it’s the one that’s left out in the way we think of planet distances.
This average-distance calculation involves working out every single possible configuration of, say, Earth, Mercury and Venus — every possible location they could be in their orbits — and then calculating which two are closest.
Based on Laughlin’s model, Mercury sits on average 1.04 astronomical units (AU) away from Earth — closer than Venus, our nearest neighbor, which sits an average of 1.14 AU away. (1 AU is the average Earth-Sun distance — about 149 million km.)
Extending that complex model to the outer planets, the closest planet to Neptune on average, turns out to be Mercury too, not Uranus!
Because Mercury is the planet that orbits the closest to the Sun, it is often closer to other planets despite the large overall distance. Mercury’s faster orbit brings it regularly back close to other planets, including Neptune.
So, counter to simple intuitions about the structure of our Solar System, by considering the whole of planetary orbits and using this complex method of calculation, the nearest planet to any chosen planet often turns out to be Mercury.
That’s a great usage of the bot! :0)))
CGPGrey made a video about this 3 years ago.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/SumDHcnCRuU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It depends on what do you mean by “2nd position”. I mean, imagine the Venus on the opposite side of the orbit, and Mercury on the same side of the orbit as Earth. In that case, the distance from Earth to Mercury would be only 0.6 au, while distance from Earth to Venus would be 1.7 au.
Yeah, I did intense brain work and I got it now. This is a very interesting way of making people think about averages, space, geometry, etc. Noticed some steam coming out of my ears. Think I’m done for the day! X’D
I learned this from QI recently. Great piece of trivia!
But only true when it’s on the other side, when Earth Venus and Mercury are in a row Venus is closest.
Edit: just saw that you wrote average… my fault.
You’re still right, though - talking about closest planet on average isn’t very useful, because it’s always going to be the closest planet to the sun. Asking “what planet can get closest to some [Planet]” is more interesting and enlightening.
Cleopatra was born closer to the invention of cellphones than the building of the pyramids
We live closer in time to the T-Rex than the T-Rex to the stegosaurus. Which makes the land before time a fictional story not based on true events.
Also the T in T-shirt stands for tyrannosaurus because it has short arms, just like the T-Rex.
Where did you get that the T stands for Tyrannosaurus? 😂
It looks like a T, that’s why it’s called T shirt, imo, no source either.
Modern birds are dinosaurs as far as I’m concerned.
Well that’s just plain science.
All Aves are Dinosauria.
I always love this one, just it sounds so crazy
It is not even all that close either, something like 500 years.
I’ve always thought this was amazing
The world is running out of sand.
It’s one of the most used materials in the world for construction but islands are disappearing because of its limited supply.
Oh no. For some reason I thought we were manufacturing the sand used in construction and stuff. At what point do we stop stealing it and start making it? Is that actually any better?
Isn’t one of the issues that the sand in the deserts isn’t the right kind?
Yes, sand in the desert and beaches is “too old”, in other words, it’s too smooth and can’t hold material together. That’s why Dubai is importing huge amounts of sand while being literally a city in the desert.
Dubai needs to stop it.
So all we need to do to increase our supply is to rough up some sand?
Some companies came up with an alternative by grounding cement blocks into cement sand instead.
Got it. I’ll just make me some concrete… Alright I need
But we can make sand so you don’t have to worry about that part
Nice one. lol
On a more serious note, they can find cement from smashed buildings. Destroying old rundown hotels to develop something else. Cool, some one wanna buy those debris and put them to some good use.
How do you make sand lol.
Put rocks through the “coarse” setting on your coffee grinder.
of coarse
That made my teeth hurt.
I just chew dried pasta.
Same way nature does, grind up bigger rocks
Why not just use the rocks themselves then
Because they’re not sand, silly!
They’re big sand
Crush big rocks into smaller rocks?
By rubbing sandpaper…duh
Shells, coral, and a whole lot of time.
Good. I hate sand.
Ani?
I heard that in the high pitched voice of Jar Jar Binks
Are you saying we should put dibs on Sahara property?
So Water world had it right apparently
Your car keys have better range if you press them to your head, since your skull will act as an antenna. It sounds like some made up pseudoscience that would never work in practice or have a negligible effect, but it actually works.
It works best if you hold the fob under your chin and open your mouth in the direction you’re aiming!
I swear these comments look more and more like a ploy to make me look stupid in public
For maximum effectiveness, open your mouth and make a “BONG” noise. It’s literally the same technology as a radar detector.
Also works better if you spread your arms and hold the fob with your chin
Closing your eyes and assuming an earth bending position like Toph helps too. Bonus points if you make your feet stomp the ground.
And then point your left leg towards the sky for extra spread
The best id the look on people’s faces when it works.
On one side you have people that think 5g causes cancer. On the other, you have people directly beaming shit into their skulls to open their cars from a couple extra feet away.
Wild
To be fair, radio waves have been everywhere for over a hundred years now. Plus, it’s just low-frequency light. It’s no different (probably safer even) than shining a flashlight at your head.
Supposing we could somehow bring the light into the body?! Or maybe we could inject them with disinfectant! We better look into that.
i dont believe it causes cancer necessarily, but i think 5g is worrying for the sake of big increase in location tracking precision
That is a very valid concern, to be honest.
Alright, I came across some researchers who were keen on validating this. It appears quite credible. You can view the results of their simulation here: Digital Debunking: Using Your Head to Extend Your Car Remote Range
How?
The tinfoil hat you’re wearing amplifies the signal!
Your skull is a parabolic reflector
I’ve read two takes on this before:
The cavity of your head helps project the signal to your car
The water molecules in your head amplify the radio waves to reach your car
I can’t imagine how water could amplify a signal. If anything, it’s the reflector like shape of your skull.
The way I do it is holding the bottom of the key under the soft part of the lower jaw while holding the mouth open as a resonance chamber.
I’ve read two takes on this before:
The cavity of your head helps project the signal to your car
The water molecules in your head amplify the radio waves to reach your car
I use this trick all the time to find my car I’m parking garages.
It does work, and I always feel like a lunatic if I do it.
The first time I heard about this was in reference to garage door remotes.
If your remote was too far away, you placed the remote under your chin pointing to your skull to amplify the signal using your head.
I would love to see more info on this
There is absolutely no way this is true. I need to see some evidence to believe this. (I work as a wireless technician)
I’ve done it. It does work.
Hold your fob a foot to the side of your head. Back away until it stops working. Take 2 more steps back to be sure. Then put the fob to your forehead. It’ll work again.
Alright, I came across some researchers who were keen on validating this. It appears quite credible. You can view the results of their simulation here: Digital Debunking: Using Your Head to Extend Your Car Remote Range
deleted by creator
All the planets in the solar system can fit in the space between the Earth and the Moon
But putting them there is almost definitely a bad idea.
this is actually a misconception! the gravity of the planets combined would cause them all to crash into each other!
This is a simple statement that the space between the earth and the moon can allow for the diameters of each planet to fit in between. Obviously it is not saying that such an arrangement would be stable for said astronomical bodies. Not at all “a misconception.”
further proof that /j is always necessary, no matter how obvious the joke
Or would they just stack up?
I just did a simulation with representative bodies that included spheroid objects of varying densities to approximate the makeup of the major solar bodies and all the fruit bounced everywhere and the lady behind the counter is really upset now.
Now you have me wondering if there’s any combination of paths that would have them all pass through that alignment and continue on their way after slingshotting around each other. And, if not, how many bodies could do that.
Wouldn’t that take even lesser space?
yes but we would all die (due to planet exploding)
“There’s nothing more we can do. I’m calling it. He’s gone. Time of death, 03:39. Cause of death: planet exploding.”
deleted by creator
I always knew we were related!
Tomatoes are also a fruit
To all those people who say they don’t like fruit on their pizza.
Also pineapple on pizza is fantastic … mi dispiace
Wait wuh! Strawberries aren’t berries? What is this heresy?
and lady bugs are actually beetles, not “true bugs”
Strawberries are nuts by definition. I guess the definition is nuts, too.
Well, the little “seeds” on the outside are nuts by def. The red fleshy part is an accessory fruit.
Wow. TIL. Thank you
General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil, and Phillips Petroleum were convicted of an actual conspiracy related to the monopolization of transit systems, which replaced beloved streetcar (rail) systems with rubber-tired oil-burning buses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Wasn’t this the plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Isn’t this Judge Doom’s plan?