• 0 Posts
  • 119 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 16th, 2024

help-circle

  • kata1yst@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyzSteamy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Oh no argument here with that point at all, that’s a fine perspective and observation. Classification is necessary, but nuance and patience when dealing with the gray areas between are too.

    My initial point was just poking fun at the mess poor astronomers have to deal with. It being one of the oldest natural sciences and all it has a bigger mess than most.


  • kata1yst@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyzSteamy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m afraid you are arguing with the simplified non-scientific definitions. Did you think I was making the complexity up? The reality of our classification system is a mess, like most classification systems, since nature doesn’t care what labels we attach.

    • The scientific definition of an asteroid is actually a combination of several factors, including where the asteroid resides (inside Jupiter’s orbit? A Trojan? A Greek?), it’s size, it’s composition (just basically not entirely icy), and it’s historical origin. This gets exceptionally complex when you take into account and icy body in the asteroid belt (we know of many), a comet that has burned off it’s ice, an ejected asteroid in strange orbits, an asteroid orbiting a planet (see Mars’ moons), a body that otherwise meets criteria as an asteroid that is larger than the other asteroids (Ceres etc)… Generally scientists today don’t use ‘asteroid’ in technical writing, they prefer ‘minor planet’.
    • The scientific definition of meteor/meteoroid/meteorite means that any body can become a meteor if it’s in the right conditions, but it’ll still be a meteoroid/comet/asteroid/moon/dwarf planet too. It’s nearly useless as a set of definitions, especially when the meanings of the same words have changed consistently since the founding of modern astronomy.
    • A comets definition, like that of an asteroid, is actually tied to its location (oort cloud? Kuiper belt? elliptical orbit? Stable orbit past Jupiter? Currently orbiting a planet? Currently close enough to the sun?), speed (influences if it can form a coma), temperature (influences if it can form a coma), composition (influences if it can form a coma), historical origin (oort cloud? Kuiper belt?). It’s another definition rarely used by scientists outside scientific communication because it lacks a firm foundation to stand on.

  • kata1yst@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyzSteamy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    Nature doesn’t care about our silly label system.

    And it is a very silly label system, decided mostly by people who didn’t fully understand what they were observing. Ask an astronomer to explain the differences asteroid vs meteor vs comet vs dwarf planet and see what dirty looks you get in response.

    Long story short, it’s going to involve Venn diagrams, classification on multiple traits that can change over time, classification on multiple traits we don’t fully understand, and a lot of historical figures making arbitrary choices in their writing.




  • kata1yst@sh.itjust.workstolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldWhat if...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    No idea how I’m supposed to take this ranty blog needlessly interspersed with furry cartoons seriously. But it’s basically just restating (poorly) all the same criticisms and alternatives written about here: https://www.latacora.com/blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem/

    The ‘real’ criticisms of PGP are that it’s old, it’s clunky, and it doesn’t support forward secrecy by design. None of that is invalid, but I think the importance of those points depends on the use case and user.

    The alternatives given are myriad and complexity and clunkiness are interspersed between dozens of solutions instead of well understood and documented in one tool.

    That isn’t a superior approach. I’m not arguing that PGP is perfect, but it’s absolutely asinine to suggest (like this blog and others suggest) that the solution is to use dozens of other solutions with their own problems and with less auditing.

    If we’re going to replace PGP, we need to do it properly in a centralized library/toolchain. Breaking up the solution and spreading it around just magnifies the problems.