41–50 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title here says "Object about to hit moon is from Chang'e 5, not SpaceX", the article says it is still not confirmed, and is just a best-guess. The actual article title is, "Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon" - HN often fixes titles that have been paraphrased or inferred, like here.
Ah gotcha!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, I would love to hear more and/or read the lyrics!
Dutch culture favors blending in vs standing out. Another saying - japanese I think, that comes to mind, is "the nail that sticks out gets the hammer". I was sure there was a softer dutch version about "the tallest flower gets the snip" or something but I can't find a reference :) I feel that this is not the same spirit as 'high trees catch a lot of wind' though, that one in particular is about how famous/important p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, I would love to hear more and/or read the lyrics!
Dutch culture favors blending in vs standing out. Another saying - japanese I think, that comes to mind, is "the nail that sticks out gets the hammer". I was sure there was a softer dutch version about "the tallest flower gets the snip" or something but I can't find a reference :) I feel that this is not the same spirit as 'high trees catch a lot of wind' though, that one in particular is about how famous/important p…
It’s quite surprising how little verification went into the original claim that it was a falcon 9 before the outpouring of standard anti-Elon driven outrage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is better circumstantial evidence, and, for reasons given in the article, it is unlikely that anything definitive will be found, at least unless the debris are examined in situ. To say you should have included more context is something of an understatement. By removing the information between the two quotes and swapping them around, you removed all the context needed to come to a reasonable conclusion.
In retrospect I should have been more careful the order, as well as context, although I expect those commenting to have read the article too, and the full quote would have be far too long to be included, imho. (edit)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> standard anti-Elon driven outrage. Elon Musk might be the most lionized individual on planet earth. It's hilarious people think the love/hate for him is unbalanced, or that he's "picked on".
There's plenty to hate on Elon for but it's possibly clear that a lot of people are looking for a news article to bandwagon onto rather then having a specific issue or issues they care about. There were definitely a bunch of people trying to cast around for some reason a booster hitting the moon was just clear disaster (it wasn't and would never be).
It’s quite surprising how little verification went into the original claim that it was a falcon 9 before the outpouring of standard anti-Elon driven outrage.
What is surprising is that in 2022 people believe everything that they read.
Let's not even start with Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.
Look back just to 2014 when Rolling Stone magazine published the completely unverified, and eventually debunked story, "A Rape on Campus". It was just a load of made-up bullshit. And then other outlets started to seize on the controversy and posted their own stories. The entire story was proven false, and it also resulted in a large settlement for the accused parties involved.
People have lied since the dawn of humanity whenever it suits their needs; there's no reason to think we've significantly changed now.
It turned out it took place - according to the algorithms and ephemerids of Guide - in 1998 or 1999, depending on the arc second definition you use. Great software.