Like, seriously, a whole lot of smoke:

Using maths to prove maths proves that the maths is internally consistent. It proves that the logical tenets behind the assumptions are valid. It is not just making things up like descriptive words (“apple” for and apple).

When you say observations line up with the maths, you’re talking about sciences like physics. And as mentioned in the video, you can never prove anything in science. You can, however, prove that the maths is inherently consistent, AKA mathematical proof.

I knew that. Just trying to stay “in Universe”. :)

It is a Sherlock Holmes quote, written by Arthur Conan Doyle. It follows that in the Trek universe, Amanda Grayson was a descendant of Doyle.

They do have Pavlova. Here’s a fun party game: Get a Kiwi and an Aussie in the same room. Ask which one of their countries invented Pavlova. Back away slowly...

A double check always help to see errors like this in the future.

I really enjoyed Ready Player One. Yes, it is a nerdy eighties nostalgiafest. If you can accept and embrace that, you’ll enjoy it. It is well plotted with good pacing and was one of the most fun reads I’ve had in years.

Ready Player One. Great.

You would indeed probably only need two from a pure thrust perspective. However you’d have to make some drastic modifications to the airframe. For a start, the rudder would have to be significantly enlarged to handle engine out situations. You’d also have to rerig the wing spars given the very different load…

Le Grand Bleu, translated as The Big Blue in English. Scared the crap out of me as well.

.

Agreed 1000-fold.

Much as I love David Hewlett, I don’t think he would be quite right. Wisecracks aside, Watney is a consummate professional in the “real” sense. Rodney McKay, if we accept him as the archetype of Hewlett characters, is lots of fun to watch, but in any real serious exploratory organization, he would have no place.

Plenty of female executives are like that. They learned early that they can prove their point without being “loud” and having a explicit commanding presence.

Agreed, or at least be consistent.

NASA remit is quite broad in aeronautics and astronautics. NASA was basically a development of NACA, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, founded way back in 1915, to “ to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research”.

It’s a piece of art, and IMHO a beautiful one. While objecting to the objectification of women is an admirable goal, I disagree with you that this particular image objectifies women, or that it is “porny”.

Remember when I told you how my PC froze up when I started processing RAW image files in Photoshop, because Windows 10 let it consume all my resources? Turns out it’s not just a Photoshop issue. Opening a browser full of tabs did the same damn thing, slowing everything to a crawl. I couldn’t even get the system to…