this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
444 points (97.4% liked)

Science Memes

12400 readers
1667 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Yes, but the audience score is at 80%.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

I’m going all in on the potential straight.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Risk is probability times consequence. Focusing on the odds without considering the second half of the equation is stupid.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Don't give me hope

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Some examples of very enjoyable related media that are not Don't Look Up include The Last Policeman book trilogy and the Netflix animated series Carol & the End of the World.

(There's nothing wrong with Don't Look Up, but it's the only recommendation I ever see.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Odds are low, but not zero. Still a bit of a nothingburger now that we've been able to successfully land probes on asteroids to sample their contents (and even send back video similar to images taken by Mars rovers). Strap a small thermonuclear warhead to an unmanned probe and redirect its trajectory - not a simple matter but entirely feasible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Make a probe with a giant fuel tank and engine land on the asteroid then just fire away to push it slightly off target so it misses the planet. Don't need to destroy just alter the trajectory a tiny bit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Wtf, no, the way to deflect an asteroid is to send something near it while it's far away. Blowing it up just risks another smaller asteroid hitting us. Small changes in direction while incredibly fast away will change its path enough to be safe.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Don't even need a warhead. The Double Asteroid Redirect Test (DART) just threw the probe itself at an asteroid hard enough to affect its orbit.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Unmanned? Nah, lets just assemble a team of oil drillers and send them up there like space cowboys.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wouldn't it be easier to train astronauts to drill?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Nah, you see this mission needs someone real smart. And when someone talks about smart people in smart professions, do you think about astronauts? No of course not. (Unless they are really really old astronauts, like geriatric, then yes.) instead you think about rough necks. That's right, you think of guys who drill holes in the ground.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

It'll be easier to teach drillers to fly shuttles than it would be to teach astronauts how to dig a hole.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Well it would still have an impact energy less than that of tsar bomba, and probably just hit an ocean.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Alabamans are still marrying their cousins.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What are you talking about Shelbyville, why would we want to marry our cousins?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Yes! Eat all of our shorts!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

I can't blame them, their cousins are hot.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Is it wrong to hope it hits us?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why is that? The planet will be fine without us. It will probably be better off without us.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 23 hours ago

Its not nearly big enough to wipe out the planet. Not even close.

It would just cause suffering for thousands/hundreds of thousands of people. Are you OK with that?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago

Yeah, because at best it just splashes in the ocean, worst it hits a city and causes mass suffering as thousands die from the impact and fallout. It's not going to end any suffering

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, because it's not going to be nearly as catastrophic as it sounds. What we need is a real world ender.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is it wrong to hope it hits the specific city I live in? 😅

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Sometimes hope is all we've got.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

I begin to worry when I see this asteroid still in the sky and how it becomes gradually bigger

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I won't believe it's gonna miss us until it gets to 95% likely it will hit

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I see another one branded by XCOM.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I find the XCOM comparisons funny because the game actually tilts the RNG in the player's favor and people still think it's unfair

https://www.giantbomb.com/xcom-2/3030-49817/forums/xcom-2-is-un-fair-1792143/

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Jup! I think in the highest difficulty they actually have the correct percentages implemented.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I don't think it's unfair, it's just that being one square away with 99% accuracy missing always feels like bullshit, regardless of whatever explanation you give.

load more comments
view more: next ›