Well i havent downvoted you during this conversation…

And you must be somewhat intrested in what im saying because you take your time and respond to my arguments.

And id like to think that given good enough argument i could change my mind.

I think we perceive the downvote differently. I dont think it means shut up. Its a binary choise. (Or ternary because no voting is choice too). There is hardly enough substance to interpret any intention behind it. Its just something people press, when somebody dont have anything to add to the discussion, or they dont have time to write their own comment.

It’s my idea of social-media utopia and this small feature would make it possible.

This is the fundamental part we seem to disagree with. I dont think its “utopia”, i think its facade, that only creates personal echochambers for people guarding them from seeing any opposing opinions.

I disagree. Its not fine tuning. Its fundamentally changing it.

I firmly belive that if we are ready to write anything on to a public channel, in this case even with anonymity, we need to be ready to accept critique and the fact that people will sometimes disagree with you. Also there will always be irrelevant, or snarky comments, but as a adult we should be able to ignore those. If you are not ready to accept it, you should reflect with yourself, if you should even be writing anything.

Artificially making it seem like everybody agrees with you is just lying to yourself and skewing your own perception of the mattet.

Also as a another point. This whole discussion we have right now comes from disagreement. I have read your comments, it has made me ponder things i would not have tought without you and weighted things you have written. I hope you have done the same. Even when we clearly have different opinions i think we have argued in good spirit.

The system you are suggesting would remove these interactions completelly.

Im against auto-blocking.

The block feature we have now is fine for what it is, because user needs to review case by case if they want to block somebody or not and they will always keep seeing other peoples opinions even if they try to make a bubble for them self.

Dont you think its inherendly dangerous to just automatically block anyone who disagrees with you?

If you see only comments that agree with you or interract only with people who have the same opinions, your views will never be challenged. Many of the societys problems has its roots in people living in their own bubble.

You can question whether we know everything, that’s always fair. but saying “maybe something will escape a high-gravity planet because we don’t know everything” is like saying “Maybe we’ll find out 2+2 isn’t always 4 because math isn’t complete.” Possible? In a philosophical sense, yes. Useful? Not really.

Most “revolutionary” discoveries refine our understanding, not overturn the foundation. Relativity didn’t make Newtonian mechanics wrong. It expanded the domain. Quantum mechanics didn’t nullify classical physics. It explained small scales. Dark matter didn’t erase gravity. It suggests additional components.

When you argue, “We’re still making discoveries, therefore our predictions about what is possible are worthless,” you’re ignoring that the discoveries rarely contradict established, experimentally validated constraints.

You aren’t offering any reason to believe our current models are wrong, only that they could be wrong because science is incomplete. By that logic, any claim can be doubted indefinitely, and no amount of evidence ever matters.

But i truly like your child like enthusiasm for space. You throw intresting ideas around, but so far they have been only wishfull thinking. Difference between science, fantasy and religion is, that when something new is proven in science, people accept it, but it needs proof first.

In fantasy people throw crazy ideas and have fun, knowing they are not real.

Religion is when you have “faith” that something is true.

You are living in somewhere between fantasy and religion with your ideas. There is nothing wrong with it, but it makes discussions meaninless, because while i try to argue based on science you dont have any limitations and can just say. “We dont know, maybe they can manipulate time”. Its really convinient isint it.

You’re treating scientific uncertainty as if it means “anything is possible.” It doesn’t.

We don’t assume variables on other planets match Earth. Astrobiology, planetary science, and exoplanet studies are built on the opposite assumption: that most planets don’t resemble Earth. When scientists estimate what life or civilizations could be like elsewhere, they work from measurable constraints (gravity, density, stellar flux, atmospheric composition), not wishful thinking. For example, we know that: A planet with 3× Earth’s gravity constrains organism size, structural strength, locomotion, and escape velocity. A planet with a dense hydrogen atmosphere changes chemistry and energy availability. A star’s light spectrum dictates photosynthetic possibilities. These aren’t guesses. They follow from basic physics and chemistry, which apply everywhere.

“They misestimated a heat shield” ≠ “we don’t understand planetary physics.” Engineering uncertainty in a single atmospheric re-entry doesn’t invalidate the underlying physics. Weather variation, material tolerance margins, and modeling limits don’t erase Newtonian mechanics or thermodynamics. If your argument were valid, airplanes would disprove gravity because turbulence is hard to predict. Scientific uncertainty does not mean lawlessness.

An organism the size of a mountain on a 10g world can’t simply evolve because “maybe their brains are bigger.” Biology cannot override: stress limits of matter metabolic scaling laws biomechanics gravity energy density limits An advanced species might innovate, but it doesn’t get to ignore basic constraints. A billion-year-old civilization would know more than we do, but they still can’t accelerate to escape velocity without energy, or support infinite mass with finite-strength materials. Knowledge does not nullify physics.

For all we know, they could be scientifically a billion years ahead of us and might be able to manipulate time or matter in ways we couldn’t conceive

This is pretty much just “We can’t rule out magic, therefore you’re wrong. Science can only operate on what’s known to be possible or what follows from tested theories. Speculating about physics-breaking abilities isn’t meaningful without evidence; it’s equivalent to saying “you can’t disprove dragons.”

When scientists say “a civilization on a super-Earth would struggle to reach orbit,” they base it on: the planet’s mass and radius → calculates escape velocity atmospheric density gravitational load on structures realistic energy sources We don’t need to know the exact geology to know that a planet of a given mass requires a minimum amount of energy to launch mass into space. That’s just conservation of energy.

Saying “we don’t know everything” is true. Saying “therefore any extreme scenario is viable” is not.

Uh… being smaller or larger does not really change the laws of physics… if the gravity is too high, no fuel has enough energy density to escape the gravity of the celestial body.

If you need 150kg of fuel to get 100kg worth of matter to escape velocity it does not matter how much fuel you have. It will not ever be enough to leave.

I hate that i cant find anywhere studies that takes the manure used as a fertilizer account in their calculations. Atleast where i live 100% of the manure from the animals is used as a fertilizer on farms and store bought fertilizers are just supplement. Most countries cant produce fertilizer enough for their agricultural need and need to buy it from outside.

I would love some real research wich would be better for the enivorent. Stop meat produsing completelly or scale it down so farms get still some benefits like fertilizer and biogas for the vehicles, but people would not eat food on every meal.

Im not geneticist, but i grew up on a farm. I always grind my teeth when people talk about miragle plants with high yields.

The plants need to get their energy and nutritions from somewhere. If you just create gmo plant that can absorb nutrition better from soil it also means you need to fertilize that soil that much more and make the crop rotation that much faster, or risk making the fields arid.

But plants that survive larger temperature shifts, more extreme weathers and pest might be necessary for us in the not so far future. Lets just hope in the future those are used for humanitys betterment and not making rich richer.

I mean there probably are lots of reasons why we farm only certain plants.

For example dewberries have short harvest window and as far as i know they need to be hand picked.

Are you saying the example in this meme is good way to follow the word of the rules?

I understand where you are coming from, but it think there are plenty of opportunities for improvisation and creative solutions without the need to start splitting hairs about specific wording.

Not going to lie. People who argue for rules like Jesse in the meme, makes me not want to play D&D.

I feel like a relic…

I used to have disc with kickstart that i needed to use so my computer would boot.

Yeah. Fuck those scientists. Especially the ones that have created life saving things like penicilling, insuling. And its so shitty they used lab rats to test useless things like covid vaccines lately. I mean why to use poor rats. They could just have tested the vaccines with poor people.

And fuck cancer treatment too. Lets just treat people blindly, they are going to die anyway, why not make their last moments suffering just because you like mouses. Maybe we just should stop trying to cure cancer.

The apex crab-eaters would slowly evolve to be more crab-like.

I think the joke here is the one sided part. Paper sheet has two sides.

The shape student is using is called möbious strip and its pretty famous mathematical object for being shape with only one plane. Another one is Klein bottle and im sure there are other ones too.