Final Fantasy, the spirits within

Your Name and Weathering with you

Both Avatar movies, but honestly, I always thought the music was a little uninspired...

Agree with the other guy. Obvious one would be impersonating high ranking politicians and military officers in order to kick off a major nuclear exchange.

I'm sure you can create an account from any custom domain you want.

Hell, no reason you couldn't host your own mail server in a VPS in Argentina and be more or less entirely unidentifiable.

As long as it can receive mail it should work.

Tech-priests.

Honestly, I think the beginner slopes can be one of the most dangerous places at a lot of resorts. Especially during the peak season. So many people with no control, and no spatial awareness. All it takes is one dude losing control and smack.

Honorable mention to groomed blues/blue-blacks in the sun in the morning and shadow in the afternoon. People just fly down those, hit ice patches, and will go sliding down the hill sideways at like 40 miles an hour.

I don't think the guy you were replying to was skiing, he was just hiking. But generally speaking, if you are hiking to ski, you put regular boots on, and if the hike is any significant distance, you get a backpack to put your ski boots in and lash your skis to them. For really short hikes (like a few hundred feet) you can just throw everything over your shoulder, and even hike in your ski boots, but for anything longer a backpack is highly recommended. Depending on the terrain, snow shoes or spikes can be useful.

Good thing you are not setting policy for NASA then.

Most of our really big probes and rovers are already carrying a fair bit of nuclear material. RTGs.

Fucking what? Lmao. You could detonate 1000 of the largest nuclear bombs ever built by man at once and it wouldn't effect the mass or orbit of the moon enough to have any effect on earth. A single small reactor sure as shit wouldn't do anything.

It won't. The particular structure the reactor is housed in will be ruined, but um... it's the moon, it's already a mildly radioactive wasteland. If they can, likely stick it in the bottom of a crater a couple miles from the main base, so even if the whole thing melts down, the base will be fine.

Absolutely not. First off you can't just buy land and form a country... that's not how it works. Ownership of land doesn't grant sovereignty.

Even if you did somehow accumulate enough power and resources to somehow start a new state... why on earth would you? It's much cheaper and easier to simply coopt an existing government than try and form a new one out of whole cloth.

The main issue is miniaturization of the nuclear weapon. Basic nukes are huge, and ballistic missiles have a very limited payload. Making a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on a ballistic missile is very technically challenging.

It's unclear on where NK is on doing this, but with Chinese or Soviet assistance, it's not implausible that they would be able to do it.

It's still, fundamentally, a chemical rocket. You light shit on fire and sling it out the back end. There are basic physical limitations on how efficient it can possibly be.

Can't know any of that without more information. We don't know the thrust-to-weight ratio for instance.

In general though, no chemical rocket is going to be able to be run continuously for the weeks and months it would take to travel to mars. You do your burn, then you coast. Optimizing the rocket is about squeezing percentage points of efficiency out of the fuel you carry. In order to do a continues burn, even for a short trip to the moon, much less mars, you would need something MUCH more fuel efficient than any chemical rocket. Nuclear possibly, or an ion drive.

>So while traditional planes can glide some,

Glide ratio of a typical airliner is around 17-20:1 (17 miles horizontal for every 1 mile vertical). Highly maneuverable aircraft are where you tend to see abysmal glide ratios. I don't believe it's publicized anywhere, but I suspect your typical F-35 glides about as well as a brick.

The main thing holding it up currently are environmental concerns around the launch site. Red tape essentially. The rocket has already done low altitude flights and static fires. It appears to work. It's quite a bit further along than SLS was a year before it's first mission. I'm well familiar with the concept of 'Elon time' but Starship flying next year is well within the realm of plausible, as long as they can iron out the launch site issues.

What do you mean? Their costs are so much lower than everyone else's that they can pretty much charge whatever they feel like and people will pay it. You're not suggesting they are launching at a loss are you?

>small collisions create debris clouds that can last for hundreds of years.

All of these satellites are at extremely low altitudes. There is measurably dense atmosphere in these orbits. Without active station keeping they will deorbit due to air resistance in about a year.

>peoples concerns about the growing tonnage in orbit isn't misplaced.

Yes. Yes it is. People have no sense of scale.

>DNA is a pretty lossy system though

Depends on the species, and on a time scale of thousands of years, DNA can be very stable compared to most other storage mediums. On a timescale of millions of years everything is pretty lossy.

Not having the technology to detect exoplanets doesn't mean people thought they didn't exist. They were postulated since at least the 1500s, and people were actively looking for them over a hundred years ago (even if the tech to find them wasn't quite there yet).

We've had a pretty good feel for the structure of the macro world for a lot longer than I think you are giving people credit for.

Hm. Just spit balling, but if you wanted to store data for a really REALLY long time (thousands of years or longer) embedding it in the DNA of a really resilient plant or fungal species is not the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Has some fairly obvious advantages over a diamond disk or something along those lines, particularly in terms of redundancy.

>We universally acknowledged there was only 1 planet less than 100 years ago.. it means nothing that something is 'universally acknowledged'.

This is just flat out wrong and shows a deeply flawed understanding of the history of astronomy. Mars has been well understood to be a rocky planet since at least the 1600s.

That's an incredibly aggressive and rude way to address someone making an innocent mistake.