I agree with this take completely. The parent comment just seemed to encourage senseless retribution without nuance, which is what I tried to voice my opposition to.

Is it? I'm not saying it's likely, but for the sake of argument let's say Netanyahu is voted out and a new Israeli government takes power that says, "We are tired of endless violence. We will remove all settlements, checkpoints, etc, and respect a two state solution with Palestinian sovereignty over the agreed upon Palestinian land." Would that not be the goal, the ideal? Or would you throw that away by trying to get back at Netanyahu and all the horrible people who have committed these crimes. Maybe I'm naïve, but you can't say that at least the aspiration should be peace. Whether that's possible without something happening to the perpetrators of violence is another question, but the retribution shouldn't be the end goal and aspiration, peace should be.

There can be no sustainable peace with constant retribution, I think that's the core thing going through this conflict this last century. For example, Israel wanted "justice" for the October 7th attacks. Did that lead to a better outcome for humanity and people living in the area? No, only more war and suffering. More war, bloodshed, and retribution is not the answer, we need to break the cycle of violence.

Anon discovers Oedipus.

No, let us hope peace comes to the region and the endless cycle of bloodshed ends. That may include justice for the people responsible, but our main aspiration should be peace and prosperity, not retribution.

Is it okay to bomb economic infrastructure of a sovereign nation because it doesn't treat its women with respect? Because that's a little ironic coming from an American.

Ok, there are two apartheid genocidal regimes, but what else have the Romans ever done for us?

Yeah but if people show up to vote in large turnout numbers, it helps with these issues.

Let's try to not have this close an election again, cause you just know the same fuckery is gonna happen if there's even a slight chance of Republicans getting away with it.

I see my comment flew over your head, although I appreciate all the info you shared. It's just that the sun doesn't deliver Watts per year or per second. The Watt is a unit of power and as such is already energy per time. Watts/year is a nonsense unit, at least in this context.

If it's 44 quadrillion Watts per year, how many is it per second?

Yeah it probably is, my comment was really about raw deltaV numbers without using gravity assists.

Yeah, you would only need to burn a little bit more on your initial burn, that's why I said the cost would be similar.

It's definitely harder to decay the orbit into the sun directly than it is to get to escape velocity. But to play devil's advocate, there is probably a way to get them into the sun while being a similar cost to escape velocity. All you need to do is burn prograde to a super high aphelion, ride all the way out there to Pluto or whatever and then do a small retrograde burn to bring your perihelion inside the sun's photosphere. When you then get back towards the sun years later you would slam into it with a sick velocity that I think would be worth the decades-long wait.

It's just not true though, unless you do an out then in maneuver.

No that's not really the case, the earth will be destroyed.

She's the person who managed to be so racist that MTG called her out publically for it, which is honestly quite impressive.

Der var et sjovt lys i himlen, der nemt kunne forveksles med lysforurening, men det havde et grønt skær. Men nej, slet ikke så tydeligt som billedet viser.

Technically there is no boundary, it's atmosphere all the way in. But what we might call the "surface" is the photosphere. That is where the density becomes "low" (read not insanely high) enough that light can escape in a free path.

The sun has an atmosphere so there are soundwaves coming out of it. It's actually all one big atmosphere getting thinner and thinner as you go out just like ours.