GreyEyedGhost

I think nerdy stuff is attractive to people on the autism spectrum, and while people on the spectrum tend to like consistency, they also have trouble recognizing social norms, let alone following them. So some act that is in large part (from other people's perspective, at least) a deviation from social norms isn't that much of a problem to them. And why wouldn't trans people prefer to be in spaces where people don't care how they're living their life? Now, add on that exposure tends to normalize social experiences, and people on the spectrum are already weird in their own way, and the neurotypical people in those nerdy spaces are already used to dealing with weird people. Adding a different flavor of weird isn't that much of a stretch.

Or, to put it another way,

Good God, who's manning the internet?

Debris from a collision can be flung in all directions, including higher orbits.

Possible, but not at all likely. The joy of orbits are they're pretty predictable because after the energy is applied the object just keeps following a path. To get a higher circular orbit would require deceleration at the right point to stabilize it. If this doesn't happen, and it doesn't in a collision, you will have a new orbit that will more or less pass through the altitude of the impact. So while it may have a higher apogee, it will have a lower perigee, which means it will suffer more drag due to more atmosphere. So the vast majority of debris from the collision of a LEO satellite collision will naturally deorbit, possibly faster than if the satellite hadn't just become inert in its orbit.

Does that make the drone an avatar?

Biblically accurate angel.

Seriously, am I wrong?

There was a story about a researcher using evolving algorithms to build more efficient systems on FPGAs. One of the weird shortcuts was some system that normally used a clock circuit, but none was available, and it made a dead-end circuit the would give a electric pulse when used, giving it a makeshift clock circuit. The big problem was that better efficiency often used quirks of the specific board, and his next step was to start testing the results on multiple FPGAs and using the overall fitness to get past that quirk/shortcut.

Pretty sure this was before 2010. Found a possible link from 2001.

One of the more memorable lines from "Whoes Line Is It Anyway", for me as least, was when one of them said, "How's it hanging, Tes-ti-cles?"

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. The difficulty you're having with this conversation isn't something I can help you with.

No, criticizing democrats, or republicans for that matter, isn't a solution. It's a first step at best, and masturbatory self-soothing at worst.

I don't think anyone said you had to like them. And by all means, you can vote third party, or not vote at all. Now, how did we get here again? One more item for that list! I also already gave you a solution of how not to be criticized for being a bad actor, but you seem to be happier focusing on the symptoms rather than the causes.

I'm tired of dealing with your paper-thin arguments piecemeal. Feel free to search "flaws in American democracy" and read the answers by people far more educated in the field than me, and apparently you, and stop wasting the time of people here.

So, "nuclear test und an uninhibited island" next?

Un inhabited?

Edit: apparently you can't have partial words italicized.

For someone who got so offended when someone supposedly put words in your mouth, you're pretty eager to do the same. If you design your system to only work when altruism is your guiding factor, well, look around. And if there are no serious penalties for breaking the standards, well, again, look around. And if you think having a system like that isn't going to attract people who are perfectly fine with screwing over the majority of the country for their own personal gain, guess what, we have a whole list of people who clearly have. If these don't sound like problems with the system to you, at least you know what flavor the different colors of crayons are.

To put it succinctly, bad actors will abuse the system for their own personal gain. Whether it be a quarterback having a football slightly under pressure so he can throw it better or a politician buying and selling stocks based on the announcements or decisions they're going to make in a few days, with no negative repercussions attached, then expecting anything less is a level of naivety I can't hope to describe.

So, are you saying that taking bribes isn't in their self-interest, or that there are no repercussions from taking bribes which would be a flaw in the system? There are the first two items you can put on that list I was talking about.