User talk:Pie Guy
Welcome[edit]
 |
|
    
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
—While False (museum | talk | contributions | logs | rights) 18:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The Sun and other suns...[edit]
No problem with this edit (it turns out valid), except for the stated reasoning. By convention, only our star is "The Sun" (or Sol/Helios/etc, according to culture being used), but a distant planet can and will orbit "a sun" (unless it's a rogue, or complicated by being in a (stable?) N-ary system!) with "the stars" acting as the relative background scenery for both (possibly mostly shared, but each one's sun otherwise only a star to the other, at best).
I would, and do, aggressively recalitalise "sun" to (The) "Sun" - as necessary - without bothering on the more poetic/relational uses. Unless, of course, it needs to be lowercased; and "our sun" preferential to "our Sun", but that would highly depend upon context, i.e. acceptably done in the following example style-usage from NASA:
Capitalize the names of planets (e.g., “Earth,” “Mars,” “Jupiter”). Capitalize “Moon” when referring to Earth’s Moon; otherwise, lowercase “moon” (e.g., “The Moon orbits Earth,” “Jupiter’s moons”). Capitalize “Sun” when referring to our Sun but not to other suns. Do not capitalize “solar system” and “universe.” Another note on usage: “Earth,” when used as the name of the planet, is not preceded by “the”; you would not say “the Neptune” or “the Venus.” When “earth” is lowercased, it refers to soil or the ground, not the planet as a whole. Do use “the” in front of “Sun” and “Moon” as applicable. See the list below for capitalization of words containing “sun” and “moon.”
Obviously there are many standards, and you made it at least as correct, but a simple "rephrasing" reason would perhaps have been better and not have then brought out my inner-pedant... ;) 172.70.46.40 23:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
'Extending' cables[edit]
No problem with the alternative wording, as it becomes, but I'm a bit concerned that you think we 'extend' undersea cables. They are laid down. Unrolled from spools (or similar windings), and might be multiple lengths of cable (whether copper or fibe-optic) spliced together as necessary for handling and other logistical purposes (before spooling or between spools, or both, depending upon practical considerations). 172.69.195.171 14:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was merely providing an example. I assumed that "extend" also included the "extension" of cables and other similar long, thin objects from spools or other holders. The first thing that jumped to my mind was a space elevator; would it not be appropriate that a space elevator's tether would be extended from the station in geostationary orbit to the surface below? In such a case, it would be a thing extended more than 400 km, making the original wording factually invalid. That's what I was thinking when I made the edit. But yeah, I knew undersea cables were rolled out in sections. Pie Guy (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Personal opinion warning.[edit]
Having played a part in the evolution of the Kamala Harris comic's warning element, I m wondering what the point is in the warning now. It's been cut down to "Just don't do stuff", now, without context or reasoning that goes beyond potentially any comic explanation. For my part, I don't begrudge Randall his opinion, helped by the fact I probably agree more with it than I disagree, but I was immediately concerned that some people were going to lambast him (on this forum, as well as elsewhere) when I saw him pin his views up so obviously, and it really does need a "look, we know you won't all agree, but let's try to be neutral; you've got plenty of other places to be rabidly for or against this opinion, and you're just going to look silly in twenty years time when Lord Binface has subsumed the whole planet into his interstellar empire", or similar. ...I can see your reasoning, but clearly you haven't seen its continual erosion (yes, originally it was far too wordy, but refining and evaporating are different things) and mostly just removal of every valid aspect to it such that it is a couple of steps away from being snuffed out. (Prematurely, IMO. The original version had an 'invisible' editor's suggestion that the warning should stay so long as Harris was in the race/the race was still unresolved, but even that got removed without any obvious reson given.) – As you can see, I'm also no obvious champion of laconic brevity... but there's a difference between distilling it down to its essence and just apllying the blue-pencil willy nilly. As the very latest in a line of those cutting it down (and with a handy Talk page, unluckily for you), I thought I'd set down my bottled up thoughts in your direction. Though you are just one of many (including myself) who have deigned to edit the warning concerned! And not at all the most questionable about it. 172.70.90.64 15:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
