This post and thread gives me (back) so much hope. I always hoped for something like described here. But I never came anywhere close and so I have lost the hope over time. I was thinking in the direction of “I just want someone to share my life with. It will work out to be ok somehow.” But some recent events and post like this give me back the hope to find a the person I really want to share time with. It also brings me the motivation to work on myself, so to be more like I would like to be. Thanks you all.

In my opinion this is a bit of a narrow view. It definitely holds true for many Christians. But I think some religions like Buddhism may actually help you find a way without guard rails.

The more self-sufficient you can be, the fewer societal resources you will take up, which could then go to someone else in greater need. That’s my perspective at least.

But the more self-sufficient you are, the more resources of yourself you need to supply yourself. So you can provide less societal resources. If you do not need to provide clothes for yourself, you have more time caring for elderly, etc.

As another view, the total resources need does not directly change by changing who does what. The advantages of helping each other are in the OP. At some point however, I would think, the overhead of organization grows so large that it may not be worth it anymore. Just think of the amount of work put into “useless” administration in many countries. But in a 30 person village, this is probably negligible.

Edit: Thanks for helping other people on the feet!

I think your post is exactly what is criticized by OP. In the first part of the post it is explicitly stated men should not talk over the fear of women. A message like yours seems to blame people just because they criticize the way of discussion in some places. I think it is obvious that men are influenced in a possible negative way, when they are always seen as danger. At least for me it probably contributed to my low self esteem, especially in all sex/gender related topics. I think, we as men do so much harm, I don’t want to take part in this. But i took it to the extreme, so I was ashamed of everything sexual about me. But as OP said, all of this doesn’t invalidate the feeling of any woman. But for example this situation here is not governed by fear, still it seems you can’t discuss the social effects of this sentiment “against” man, without discrediting the other side. Sure, violence done mainly to women is the most important topic. But if men always get portrayed as danger, I can understand some are open to other, more misogynist worldviews.

I bit late but i i think it is proven there is no solutions, except for the special case 0° and side lengths 1, 1 and 0. Let us consider the triangle with a²+b²=c² and a = c sin(pi q) where q is the angle as a fraction of half a circle. So you are looking for a solution where a, b, c are integer and q is rational. So we first need to find a rational value for q where sin(pi q) is rational. According to https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/87756/when-is-sinx-rational#87768 this happens only for the well known case of 30°, so q=1/6 and a/c=1/2. However, in this case b=c/2 × sqrt(3) which is irrational, so with this angle we can never create integer side length.

Acapellascience (Tim Blais)

This wasn’t the point as i read, the question was about confidence. And this has little to do with how “pretty” you are. Your confidence is only in your mind. Sure if others think of you as ugly, it’s harder to gain confidence. But I think especially a lot of girls have confidence issues with their appearance despite looking “good”.

deleted by creator

Good description, but I would say even the parallel and seemingly rational analysis can be very one sided. I noticed on myself that in similar situations my “rational” analysis swings in the same direction as my mood. And if it doesn’t, I sometimes do not believe, or more precisely, do not feel it. So it doesn’t really help quite a lot. This doesn’t make it useless, just a side note to not be to harsh on yourself if it doesn’t work.

Another thing which also helps me in such situations, is to remember these are just feelings. Sometimes you just feel worthless or dumb, but this are just your feelings, not you. And just because you feel this way, it doesn’t need to be true. Acknowledge the feeling, but try to still notice it is just a feeling.

When there is only 50% totality, photovoltaic also makes 50% less. You just do not notice it when looking around, because your eyes adjust to the changed brightness. So a photovoltaic produces less for a longer time. What I found, for the 2017 eclipse, was that around 16GW were impacted with at most a reduction of 5GW in one moment.

Yes. One place in space has different temperatures. I would assume even individual particles are not distributed by a Maxwell distribution, so the concept of temperature is hard to apply. The background radiation has one temperature. If you add the sun, however, you already have a problem as the sun radiation is not in thermal equilibrium. So depending on how you look at it, you get different temperatures. The particles have a high energy, so also a high temperature. But they are so rare, that radiation is the dominant mode of heat transfer and determines the temperature of a thermometer placed in space.

I think it is actually the other way around. You can consider the air inside the balloon to have internal energy from the heat. And additionally you have to make room for the balloon in the atmosphere, so you have removed the atmosphere from the volume the balloon takes, which also needs energy. If you consider both you arrive at the concept of enthalpy (H = U + pV), which is very useful for reactions in the atmosphere as pressure is constant. For this example it is not that useful as outside pressure changes when the balloon rises.

Another way to see it, the pressure has no “real” energy. In a ideal gas, the only energy comes from the kinetic or movement energy of the atoms. Each time a gas molecule is hits the balloon envelope it transfers some momentum. The cumulative effect of the constant collisions is the pressure of the gas. If the balloon is now expanding slowly, each collisions also tranfers some energy, in sum building the work the system has to do to the atmosphere. Leading to a decrease in internal, so “real” energy in the balloon. This corresponds to a decrease in temperature.

The stratosphere is heated not by the ground but directly from solar radiation leading to higher power input at the upper layers. So the top is hotter and now convection never starts and you get no cooling of the air when rising.

While I agree in general, one point is a bit to simplified in my opinion

In other words, there are fewer air molecules per cubic foot (volume of air). The molecules are farther apart and can hold less heat energy. Because “heat” is what we say when we mean molecules are moving around.

Less molecules mean less heat, it has nothing to do with the temperature, if you just decrease the density by removing half the molecules, you have the same temperature.

It cools down because it expands adiabatically. Consider a very thin balloon filled with air which is warmer than the surrounding. This now rises up, but as it does, the pressure decreases, causing the balloon to expand. During this expansion, the balloon transfers energy away from itself, because it has to push away air, to make room for expanding in the surrounding. This work cools the air inside the balloon. Assuming the air inside is dry, it would cool around 10 °C per km it rises. Now if you think about it, the balloon just stopped the inside from mixing with the outside. If you look at a large “piece” of air, it does not mix very fast, so you can remove the balloon and just consider what happens with warm air heated from the ground.

Now this does not mean, it has to be cooler when higher up. The same points hold, inside a house, but there it is often warmer when higher.

The best explaination is when looking where the heat comes from and goes too from the air. The atmosphere is mostly heated from the surface of earth, so the bottom and cooled from the upper layers. So naturally it gets hotter where it is heated. The question is now by how much? There are three modes of heat transfer in the atmosphere: radiation, conduction and convection. The first two are very slow. Connection is fast but has limits. Consider the piece of air, if it rises, it cools. So at some place it may be the same temperature as the surrounding air, so it stops rising. This means the convection works only when the air gets cooler by 10 °C/km going up (~6.5°C when the air is moist and precipation happens). So this temperature gradient is observable very often.

Yes, the file itself (so the data and inode) is not gone as long as the handles live on. Only the reference is gone. You canstill recover the file. https://superuser.com/questions/283102/how-to-recover-deleted-file-if-it-is-still-opened-by-some-process#600743

But also learn to feel your feelings by yourself.

I agree completely with this stance

If you need to talk a lot about your feelings, especially the deep stuff, talk to a therapist. That’s not brushing you off, it’s what therapy is for.

While I agree that therapy can help a lot in those situations, I don’t think these talks should be limited to a therapist. I try to be somebody you can come to and talk about deep stuff for my friends. With one friend of mine, I mostly talk about deep feelings. It is great to have somebody like her, it’s a different category than therapy. A therapist shouldn’t give you his opinion and rarely shares similar experiences. Sometimes it’s just nice to have someone to talk to in a more symmetric way. For me it’s almost never a burden to listen to the emotions of people I like. I want to hear the deep stuff.
Sure a friend is not a replacement for therapy, but therapy is also not a replacement for a friend with whom you talk about deep emotions.

This hits me hard. I am a cis male and currently trying to get rid of something like toxic masculinity, but as you say it is deeply rooted.

I acually never strived for the stereotypical man image, I wanted to have an emotional side. Now i know i always just considered “having am emotional side” just as another kind of requirement to be a good man. So i tried listening to others and beeing open myself, talking about emotional things. But only those, that i thougt were accepted. I never talked about my real worries. They always seemed to ridiculous to me. A good emotially healthy man shouldn’t have them or solve them himself. Now it feels pretty dumb in retrospect, but I am no longer letting this feeling stop me from talking about something. In some way I also have the feeling i betrayed other people with a fake personality.

I know this is not the mistake of feminism. I cannot really say what went wrong to land in this position. I do not even know why i tell this now. In some way, I just want to tell my story and hope someone can relate with it. Secondly i want to say, that the following is not obvious for everyone, at least it was not for me: Beeing emotional is not just some requirement for you, it’s also about having an opportunity to get support for your worries.

I just want to say, i loved Dragon’s Egg for this level of detail to the physics. I even did some quick calculations why you want 6 compensator masses not less to reduce the effect of tidal forces. Or the black holes inside the sun, at first i thougt, this is impossible. Then i read some more on it an noticed its well researched.

The links are actually only random images from an image search with the terms “solar eclipse through tree leaves” and “iss in front of sun”.

I think you have in mind, that the rays are not parallel because they have to arrive at different positions. As you say, this is negligible, and it can even be avoided by the tilting of the mirrors. However, the rays start from different parts of the sun, and as the sun is huge, this angle is not so small.

I’ll try to explain it in more detail, sorry for the wall of text, it got longer than expected. In this case, we can use simplified ray optics and ignore the wave nature of light. This means, the light of the different mirrors or even pieces of mirrors just adds to one another. An important point, even if obvious, is that each point on the mirror surface can only have one orientation. Now we “select” the orientation of this point, we orient it in a way, that it reflects the rays from the center of the sun¹ directly on the sun.² But until now, we have ignored the rays which come from the rim of the sun. These rays start at a different position, namely the sun radius (695700 km). Due to different starting position, the rays have a different angle to arrive at the power plant, arcsin(sun radius / sun-earth-distance), which is 0.27°. Now we already oriented the mirrors parts in a way, that the rays from the center of the sun are reflected onto the satellite, but the rays from the rim of the sun come at an 0.27° differing angle. If the incidence of the ray on a mirror is changed by an angle, the outbound ray is also changed by the same angle. This leads reflected rays leaving in a direction 0.27° offset from the direction to the satellite. Assuming the satellite is at a height of 300 km and directly above, it is 300 km away, the smallest realistic distance. With this angle, it leads to a miss of plant-satellite-distance * sin(angle) leading to 1.4 km. This thought is valid for all points on the rim. Similarly, the rays between the rim and the center land between the satellite and 1.4 km off target. Hence the plant projects an image of the sun onto the satellite with a radius of 1.4 km.

¹ Well they actually do not come directly from the sun, they still come from very close to the surface, but they seem to come from the center of the sun and for rays it is not important how far they have already traveled. We can just assume the sun is a disc.
² If we assume the mirror is optimally shaped, we can reflect every ray, which seems to come from the center of the sun, perfectly on the satellite. Such a mirror would be part of an ellipsoid, with focal points at the center of the sun and the center of the satellite. In practice, it would be practically indistinguishable from a paraboloid with the satellite (deviance of 1.5 µm with a guessed plant size of 1 km). This is possible as the rays through the center of the sun falling onto the plant are, as you say, almost parallel.

Yes, you are right, considering the rays emerge from a point. And yes, each panel or all panels in unison can act like a magnifying glass. However, if they focus the light on a point at the height of the satellite, they work like a magnifying glass, or telescope with a focal length of the satellite – power plant distance, so at least 300 km. Considering the angular size of the sun, this telescope would lead to an image of the sun, the size of 3 km.

No sun rays are not parallel. If you looked at the sun (don’t, it will burn your eyes), would you see it as a point or a disc? As a disc. Why? Because even looking in slightly different directions, you see the sun. So the rays from the sun are not almost parallel, the rays from other stars are, they look point like.

Two interesting images for you: A solar eclipse viewed trough tree leaves: You can see the partial sun disc by using the small free points in the tree cover as pinhole cameras. Sure, the tree cover does not have lenses, but they only make the image sharper, not smaller. In this image the focal length is only the height of the trees and the image is already a few cm across. It also shows that the rays from the sun are not parallel. If they were, all rays going through the small free spots in the tree cover would end up at the same spot on the ground.

International Space Station, ISS, flying in front of the Sun: As the sun and the satellite are far away, we can assume that the angular size of the original sun and the virtual sun image are approximately the same when viewed from the power plant. Hence, this image shows how the mirrors would form an image of the sun, where only a small part of it hits the sun.
As the sun is much larger than the ISS, the angle of rays which come from the sun is much larger than the angle of rays which hit the ISS.