Cognitive dissonance is the holding of two incompatible beliefs, or having beliefs at odds with your lifestyle, at the same time. This isn't that.

If you ever wonder why vegans are unpopular with the population at large, it's because your attitude towards other people while making your point sucks.

You were receiving a tonne of downvotes for your argument and hadn't responded for 6 hours. I thought I would elaborate on the basis that your argument may have been misconstrued by some.

I now know that trying to defend someone who is hostile to everyone else is a fool's errand. Fuck me for trying to give everyone a chance to defend their point of view, right?

I mean, I have kept chickens, free roaming in an orchard. They have no interest in keeping their eggs most of the time. They get trampled or buried under straw where they go off. Occasionally you'll get a broody hen, but it's not guaranteed.

>Lol I’m not the one inventing excuses to eat chicken menstruation

If you're trying to gross me out, it's not working. If you choose not to eat eggs, fine, I will respect your dietary choices. Even though I know it's a one way street.

>helping them regain the lost calcium

A common practice in smallholding is to feed the egg shells (crushed) back to the chickens in their feed.

>There are health problems associated with egg laying, as domesticchickens are bred to lay far more and bigger eggs than their jungle fowlancestors

A wide sweeping statement which is not accurate for all breeds of chicken. There are hundreds of breeds, from Bantams to Orpingtons, who lay at varying frequencies and various sizes and colours of egg.

>and also consider hormonal prevention of egg laying.

Tinkering with the reproductive system of an animal to satisfy your personal ideology? Surely that's hypocritical under veganism?

>Veganism is primarily against seeing non-human animals as being for human use.

I take the view that responsible and considerate husbandry of most animals can be symbiotic or commensalist. If the animals are healthy and happy whilst also providing milk/eggs/wool/honey, I see no issue with it.

What u/theCatLeigh is saying is that they think it is cognitive dissonance to love chickens and yet still keep them as livestock.

A view I don't agree with, but feel free to downvote me further for trying to explain it.

They're a vegan and so view the keeping of livestock of any sort, regardless of standard of care, as immoral.

Odd take away, but you do you.

Yes, human eyes are amazing - but note that they cannot observe both phenomena at the same time. In sunlight, your irises constrict a lot and it's still dazzling - under a night sky they quadruple in diameter, so that's an 16:1 ratio when they fully dilate to when they fully constrict.

I doubt you could be able to gather enough light to see stars at full constriction, and your retina would be utterly overwhelmed if you tried viewing the sun with a fully dilated iris.

If you are in any kind of shadow, yes.
It's basically the limit set by the dynamic range of the optical instrument viewing. Given that sunlight is 60 million times brighter than starlight, it's no wonder that it washes out.

Batygin and Brown hypothesised a Neptune-mass object orbiting on a highly eccentric 10,000 - 15,000 year orbit as a solution to an observed "shepherding" of Kuiper belt object orbits (because they observed what looked like a lopsided distribution in their orientations).

As for why it hasn't been observed, if it exists, is that the region it would be in its orbit is huge, as in, dwarfing most of the solar system. That far out, from the planet's perspective the sun would be nearly indistinguishable from other stars, so the planet would be very, very cold and have next to no reflected light.

So you'd be looking for a black needle in a gigantic dark haystack who's only clues about where it is is based off of how other needles you've found have been distributed in the gigantic haystack.

When we find exoplanets, its largely because they blot out the light of their parent star, or in the case of particularly massive planets, they can make their host star wiggle.
With the hypothetical planet 9, we have no host star to helpfully observe and watch for an occultation.

There are some who believe that China's aggressive expansionism and Russia's revanchism is merely a difference of opinion and that actually all that is needed is a sit down around a table and talk it out.

It's a noble, if naive, sentiment, but not one rooted in reality.

That said, we need to keep conflict out of space as much as possible. It would be all too easy to render our orbital environment hostile to all space endeavours because of flaring tempers - and this would be a burden to bear for centuries.

There's a surprisingly large amount of people on this sub who reflexively default to rudeness. I still remember my introduction to r/space 5 years ago when I made an aerospace joke and some guy responded to me with "That's only with Boeing aircraft, this is an Embraer. Don't try to join in with a community you clearly don't belong in". As I was just starting my Aerospace bachelor back then, it has kinda stuck with me as a reminder that no matter what field you go, people can be horrible and elitist for no reason.

While I personally do not believe in any spirtualism/astrology/mysticism, and typically debunk it on reflex when I see it in the wild, I'm sorry to say that this is a very unfriendly subreddit for you to find yourself in.

Even those firmly rooted in the hard sciences can find this subreddit a bit toxic at times, so I'm sorry you're on the recieving end of the brunt of it for asking an innocuous question.

Heavy involvement in sports was very much a thing in the Victorian era, it was viewed as healthy and good for the mind (which, surprisingly compared with many Victorian beliefs on other medical issues, is actually correct.)

The thing is that in that era it was a much more local, amateur scene - professional sports weren't really a thing yet.

Another point I should make though is that Victorian society was heavily stratified. Do not assume that what is normal for the upper classes translates to the behaviour of the lower classes. Not everyone saw an education as being worthwhile, many thought their children should focus on practical matters of making enough to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

>there is no law stating that you cannot reproduce it

I mean, there is literally a piece of text on the first or second page of most books that reads:

>No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.

Yeah, that'll probably be it. I have to admit I avoid the romance genre like the plague. It's like frosting on cakes - I don't mind a bit as part of a more balanced cake, but I don't want my cake to be mostly frosting.

>Both men and women writers can write women badly.

What is interesting is how few people mention when men are written badly. It does happen on a regular basis, but I think its because women often have the most glaring mischaracterizations in fiction that "badly written women" often takes the crown.

I have yet to encounter a book, however, where the women were written believably but the men were not.

Yeah, but the thing is that you don't know what the colour of the ball is going to be. You can't control that aspect of it. As a result, you don't know if the ball is going to collapse into the state you want it to or not.

Furthermore, due to relativity, what is your timeframe is not necessarily the time frame of another.

You mean the whole "Let's use quantum entanglement as a method of communication" idea? It's not a new idea, I'm afraid.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work because of the basic fundamentals of quantum physics. If you observe one of your entangled pairs, that is you interact with it to take a measurement, you break the entanglement.
There's no way for you to know whether that state it collapsed into was a result of your interaction, or of a manipulation of the entangled partner.

To give an analogy, you have a box which contains a magic ball that changes colour, blue to red, or red to blue if its partner ball is observed, and vice versa. The partner ball is in an identical box held by a friend, and you go to opposite sides of the town and open your boxes. Neither of you know the colour of your ball before opening.

Your ball is red. But is that because your ball was originally red and you just flipped your friend's ball? or is it because your friend opened their box before you and flipped your originally blue ball to red? You don't know without communicating with them, but that defeats the whole purpose of trying to use entangled states to communicate.

These are images from Orion's navigation cameras. They're great for getting your bearings, but they're not the top tier surface imaging cameras such as those used on the LRO.

>I don't believe Nasa installed a camera with a fixed aperture, completely non-adjustable

If you want something for figuring out your vehicle's orientation and position in space, that's exactly what you want. Now, I agree that the cameras onboard aren't the best, but this is a technology demonstrator mission, not a "lets map the moon in 12K sharp quality" mission.

We have the excuse that its literally 30-odd countries in a loose partnership together, and for the most part the big players are consistent.

Look, you want to be pissed with the fact that Europe says it cannot unconditionally trust the US, fine. Tell me which nations does the US unconditionally trust?

>the idea has been there for decades

The idea of fully reusable LVs has been around for ages, but no one has managed to come up with a working concept until SpaceX. (And STS and Buran are only partially reusable, and neither delivered on their supposed savings).

I don't disagree that Europe has dragged its feet on the space front for a while, but commercial space has kind of emerged as a happy accident - the Boeing/Lockheed monster was as fat and bloated as European bureacracy until SpaceX suddenly started showing them up.

>We’re supposed to be a team!

I've explained it elsewhere, but in short its because the US behaves very erratically towards Europe. Sometimes you are friendly, other times you are threatening to pull out of Nato. Your companies are often very predatory, and the US has frequently put itself in positions where it tries to take advantage of Europe or dictate Europe's foreign policies.

While Europe would like it always to be a friendly relationship, we know that the US's ambitiousness means we can easily fall prey if we aren't wary.

And FWIW, the US isn't viewed in the same light as China, we just don't want to be dominated or be reliant on you.

>Show me an SSTO.

You may as well ask "show me a Unicorn" because an functional SSTO doesn't exist.

>Or a reusable.

One South African guy sets up a company in the US to light the fire on the concept of reusables and you guys are immediately "Oh yeah, we came up with that". Its a very recent development in aerospace, and launch vehicles take years to design, and years more to get funding to progress beyond the drawing board.

>Cos the US has Silicon Valley, and Europe doesn't

Europe has ASML and the US electronics manufacturers would be dropped back to the 80s without them.

>An emotive analogy that once again betrays no understand of trade relation of international politics.

No it's an excellent analogy. The US and Europe relationship works because we agree more often than we don't, and we get more stuff done than we would if we had constant knives in each other backs. But that doesn't mean that if the US can get an advantage over Europe, it will refrain from doing so out of respect.

>You are likely thinking of the Peierls calculations the UK gave to the US in
1940 as part of the Tizard mission, but then the UK went its own way
for several years not realising the sheer scale of what the US was
doing.

I'm also talking about the joint funding, the procuration of Uranium, the design and construction of gaseous diffusion plants, etc etc. It wasn't an equal involvement, but the US violated the Quebec agreement because it suited it.
The point I am making here is that the US dealt in bad faith because it had the advantage.

>The US has been flying European astronauts since Ulf Merbold in 83. Europe does not have its own because it wont pay for it.

The US didn't fly them for free. And lest we forget the interlude between 2011 and 2020 where the US was reliant on Soyuz "Because the US wouldn't pay for it". Stones and glass houses.

>you think you are an expert.

Who claimed I was an expert? Do I need to be to have an opinion?