Throw it into water or gelatin. At thousands of metres per second the air is going to seem much more dense.

That’s 11.2 km/s and 42.1 km/s.

Also, even if the manhole cover was going at above 12 km/s the trajectory has to be right for that to result in orbit. Most paths it would take would result in it going up and then coming back down again. Similarly, if somehow it did manage more than 50 km/s and wasn’t destroyed in the atmosphere, it might have the velocity to escape the sun’s gravity, but probably wouldn’t be on the right path to do it. Most likely it would fall into the sun.

So, assuming the 125,000 mph (55 km/s) velocity is correct, the most likely outcome is that it was a reverse-meteor, something that burned up going up through the atmosphere, not down. And even if it did have enough speed to get out of the atmosphere, and there was enough of it left, it most likely fell right back down through the atmosphere somewhere else, either burning up on re-entry or hitting the ground (or the water) somewhere else.

It’s interesting how there’s a hint of science here, but so much non-science.

Like, trying to categorize things is a bit scientific. Trying to distinguish between similar but different things is a bit scientific. At the same time, so many of these causes of death are symptoms not causes. And, there are too many cases where they didn’t bother to try to find a cause, like the “Planet” cases or “Suddenly”. Also, almost all of the deaths are in children / infants, but in those cases they don’t try to figure out the cause of death, they just note the age.

Nobody thinks Joe Rogan sounds smart. Dumb people just like him because he asks the same dumb questions they’d ask if they could talk to the same celebrities.

He was a good interviewer then because he’d ask good questions, shut up, and let them talk.

And there was no time pressure on his podcast. The episodes took as long as they took, so no need for people who aren’t good at sound bites to figure out how to explain something complicated in a fast and simple way.

But, even back pre-COVID, pre-Spotify, he was a dangerous idiot. Like, he’d have Alex Jones on, and the guy would spew vast quantities of dangerous misinformation, and Rogan would fact check him on one little thing and that moment would go viral. Meanwhile, Alex Jones gets platformed and most of his BS goes unchallenged.

He had maybe 3-4 good years when his podcast changed from having the same MMA fighters / comedians on again and again every year, to having new people every week, to when it went full-on right wing. In 2012/13 it was still an MMA / comedy podcast featuring mostly the same people every week. Then he had Neil Degrasse Tyson, Dana White, Dan Carlin, David Lee Roth, Douglas Rushkoff. In 2017 he had Alex Jones for the first time. But, by then he was already platforming woowoo people pushing “supplements”, and right-wing assholes like Stephen Crowder and Gavin McInnes.

He still is incredibly popular, that’s why many people think his hosting Trump on his podcast helped swing the election.

He’s always been libertarian right wing. But, since he became generationally rich, he’s now full on Republican.

That’s a weird take, that podcasts are the issue and not monopolies, big tech, lack of privacy regulation, etc.

Podcasts are one of the few interoperable, democratic things left out there. Anybody can put one up, they use an open technology, RSS, for distribution, they’re not monetized by default, etc.

The real issue is that the Internet has an advertising duopoly made from two companies that harvest vast amounts of personal data. They promote controversial stuff like Joe Rogan because it keeps people engaged (read “angry”) and engaged people spend more time on their various sites which means more ad dollars flow in.

Spotify, which has a cozy relationship with the music industry cartel, signed Rogan to an enormous deal. So, again, not really podcasting that’s the issue here, it’s the music/entertainment cartel using him as a means of driving engagement with their platform.

David Searchengineoptimizer, Mary Marykaycosmeticssales, Oleg Disinformationandpropagandabotprogrammer.

My premise is that people are sometimes corrupt and that power corrupts. There are democrats in power.

Are you really so much in a cult that you can’t believe that your side could possibly be anything less than pure?

It’s a laptop, do you really need 7 USB C / Thunderbolt ports on a laptop? You can always plug in a dock and get multiple other ports when you’re set up at a desk.

When I’m not at a desk I rarely have anything at all plugged in. Maybe power if I’m going for a long time, but the Pro has its own power adapter. Maybe a USB stick for a minute or two.I can’t imagine having 3 things, in addition to power and headphones, plugged in while I’m not at a desk. At a desk it’s probably more convenient to have a dock so you can have a bunch of things permanently plugged into the dock (keyboard, mouse, screens) that require just 1 plug to the laptop before they’re ready to go.

Cool stuff, I live in a city. Not a huge city, but big enough that I only see the major stars at night. It would probably take me at least 45 minutes of driving to get somewhere dark enough to take a picture like yours (assuming I had all the equipment and skill to take that kind of picture at all).

Wow, you’re like some kind of cultist. Any criticism that might apply to democrats and you come out swinging.

My premise is that we don’t know what ethics violations have been suppressed by either party. We know that both Republicans and Democrats have been found to have violated ethics, but we don’t know whether it’s the majority that have been exposed or if it’s just the tip of the iceberg. If it turns out that the Democrats have never suppressed an ethics violation then maybe they do live up to your mental image of them and are pure as the driven snow. But, it’s also possible that the democrats have protected some members.

That doesn’t mean that Republicans are better than Democrats or something, it just means that politics is politics and sometimes people in power get away with things. But really dude, you should cut back on the hero worship. These are just politicians, they shouldn’t be your whole identity.

We know of some democratic lawmakers who have been held accountable, and a very small number of republicans. But, really we don’t know whether what we’re seeing is the norm, or if it’s just a tiny fraction being held accountable. It’s possible that there are more democrats that are committing unethical acts, but that they’re better at hiding it and/or have more complicity in covering it up. But, I think most sane people would say that everybody’s ethics violations should be public information. Even if it means hundreds of congresspeople losing their jobs and massive uncertainty in who will hold power. Ethics violations should be something voters get to know about.

I’m sure you know other people spending thousands on their gear. Anyhow, many of these hobbies can be done relatively cheaply, but I imagine the woman picturing the man doing it as someone who wasn’t going the ultra-cheap route.

Nice picture btw. How far do you have to travel to get somewhere where there’s a low enough level of light pollution that you can take a picture like that?

Even if the democrats weren’t actually holding their members accountable, it should be done. So what if dozens of politicians, both R and D get expelled as a result. Nobody should be upset that people who had bad ethics reports get expelled.

If you did it in the olde fashioneded way with a manual hammer, manually stoking the forge with a bellows, etc., then sure. But AFAIK modern blacksmithing is pretty similar to modern carpentry or welding or any other hobby where the machines do most of the work. It’s still a somewhat active hobby, compared to doing something with a computer. But, I don’t think a modern blacksmith is going to get huge arms from doing it.

A leather shop as in fetish gear, or a leather shop as in a place for leatherworking hobbyists?

Does listening to something count as reading? Hmm… I’m going to have to go with a no here.

A lot of these hobbies are wealth-adjacent.

Playing an instrument: a good instrument isn’t cheap, and music lessons can be pretty expensive.

Woodworking requires a lot of fairly expensive tools, and a space to do it. You can’t really have woodworking as a hobby if you live in a small studio apartment. You basically need a house, either one with a basement, a shed or a garage.

Gardening: requires a garden, something you’re unlikely to have unless you have your own house.

Photography: I don’t know anybody who is into photography who hasn’t sunk a lot of money into the hobby. There’s the cameras, the lenses, and even the software these days.

Astronomy: see above.

Hiking: not expensive on its own, but in North America it means being able to drive to a wilderness spot outside the city, so you pretty much require your own car.

Archery and blacksmithing: again, requires a specialized space

Now, I know that there are cheap options for a lot of these. A musician could be someone drumming on an upside-down pail. Someone who only has access to a hotplate could still experiment with food. Woodworking could be just whittling sticks found in the park. Gardening could just be tending to a small houseplant. But, are these the version of the hobbies the women are picturing when they’re imagining a potential mate doing the activity? Probably not.

Meanwhile, a lot of the stuff at the bottom of the list are very cheap hobbies. Like being influenced by the “Manosphere” just requires access to social media, same with porn and “arguing online”.

Honestly, it looks to me like if you sorted the list by “dollars per hour someone invested in that hobby is likely to spend” you’d get many of the same things at the top and many of the same ones at the bottom. Some of the few exceptions are writing and reading, which can be pretty cheap hobbies, but are still apparently very attractive.