The largest ring of Jupiter is just about 129 000 km of radius. The nearest Galilean moon to jupiter has a semi-major axis of 421 800 km, so the rings aren’t in any of their orbital neighborhoods.

Beside, the largest of them, Ganymede, is more massive than Mercury.

But you’re right that not all the moons would be either planets or dwarf planets, many would be asteroids.

One must imagine Pluto happy.

Four of them, the galilean moons would be. The others would be dwarf planets [EDIT not all moons, many would be asteroids].

I see. Well, you say you’re “not that serious” about wanting to be a biochemist, but is it still something you want ? Since you also said earlier that you couldn’t commit to something else three more years, to keep going in that track doesn’t seem like a bad option.

Otherwise, if you find a work project involving one or several of the subjects that interest you, that’d be the other good option.

I’m a student myself, and I’ve jumped a few times from a study to another, but now I’m committing to physics and I don’t intend to let go. But there’s also a few skills and fields of interest I like learning on the side… That’s not a contradiction, everyone is interested in different things and has a skill set that’s doesn’t depend only ln their work. I intend to be a good amateur artist and an informed layman on several subjects, but physics is what I want to study professionally.

Committing to something doesn’t mean you should give up on all the rest, just that you should set boundaries on what will be the thing you’ll be an professional in and the rest. Even if you go a different path, don’t think of the time you devoted to biochemistry as wasted time… It’ll have fed your culture and skill set. Maybe it’ll be useful to you, maybe not, but either way it’s not a negative thing. A choice is good if it is a choice you’ve made. And you’re not that late anyway, some have “wasted” more years than that.

Of course, I’m just a student myself, not a teacher or anything. Beside, I’m French and our university systems might be a bit different, so take it with a grain of salt.

What have you studied so far, and what made you leave the last course?

I don’t find that this adage applies that well in politics. Yeah, I’ll assume whoever almost hit me with his car the other day was stupid/irresponsible/distracted rather than that they were attempting to murder me. Or that someone who gave me wrong directions to somewhere was mistaken rather than deceitful. That is because stupidity can explain these things, but stupidity on its own doesn’t explain becoming president.

Beside, if you assume he was being used by dickcheneys, you’re still assuming malice, just not from the same person.

As for which case his behavior would make most sense in, I won’t try to contradict you since I’m not good at analysing people and don’t enjoy trying.

I just tend to think of Trump+close collaborators as a system and assume the purpose of a system is what it does, and I don’t make too many assumptions of Trump’s exact place in this.

With people in power it’s always hard to say whether a bad thing they do is due to stupidity or ill-intent, tho I tend to favor the second hypothesis.

All of their actions did benefit a group. For Trump, most obviously, himself; but he also advanced the power of the American far-right and probably some companies thanks to lose regulations. For Bush, he clearly aimed to give more power to companies over things formerly done by the state, like hurricane relief or even the military. His vice president Dick Cheney famously profited from the Iraq war through the company Halliburton.

Many of Bush’s policies had a disastrous human cost, but they were very efficient at filling the pockets of a few shareholders. So was he an incompetent buffoon playing into the hands of the capitalists, or was he himself an evil schemer who willingly enriched those he deemed worthy allies at the expense of the rest of the world?

Same question applies to Trump. A narrative people like is that of the out of control puppet. An idiot that the Republican Party tried to use because he was attractive to their target demographic, but who ended up turning against his puppeteers and giving full reign to his folly.

But it’s also possible that he is a smart and evil man who’s particularly talented at playing the role of a madman and who saw it was working.

So basically, I have no definite knowledge of the intelligence of either man.

It is good.

Giant space laser to destroy military infrastructure and aircrafts. All of them. Bring peace on earth through terror.

I love olives. Olives are great.

I will die on this hill.

Then perish.

It’s relatively easy for recent things related to big technological advances (first phone call, first man in space…); but it’s nearly impossible for really old thing, because while you can find out one really old thing existed at one time, it’s always merely the oldest known occurence. An earlier one might’ve not left surviving traces, or it’s traces might’ve not been found yet…

How can we know there weren’t earlier consumer complaints that didn’t survive tho?

Possibly this guy on this very community saying he liked to publicly masturbate and asking women how they’d react to seeing him

Mostly cheese. Many different types of cheese. I know there are some cheep cheeses around, but I find the difference between a good and a mediocre cheese is such that I chose to compromise on the quantity rather than on the quality…

In English, I hate both “from where” and the rarer “from whence”. I first found out about the words “whence”, “whither”, “thence” and “thither” (respectively meaning "from where, “towards where”, “from there” and “towards there”) while reading the Lord of the Rings in English. I found these were powerful words that could make many sentences shorter and clearer and that it was a shame they went out of popular use…

But then, I also heard “from whence”, which struck me as far worse because it was redundant and stripped the word of its power. I first thought it was a mistake, but after seing it several times I looked up how it was meant to be used to see if I wasn’t in the wrong and saw that while it had started as a mistake, it came into use several hundred years ago and was used by many famous classic authors, making it acceptable.

Imo, that’s probably what killed these words. I guess it had the merit of being less easily misheard, but when “from whence” and “from where” mean the exact same thing, why bother remembering “whence”?

In my native language, French, I kinda dislike “C’est quoi ?” (Litt. “It’s what ?”, pronounced [sekwa] meaning "What is it ?). It’s a vernacular expression often found incorrect… But I also kinda understand why it exists. The most correct way to ask “what is it” is “Qu’est-ce ?” ([kɛsə] or [kɛs]). It works well when written, but I guess being too short, it can be easily misheard. For example, “caisse” (a large box) is pronounced the exact same way. The other alternative, more common in oral speech is “Qu’est-ce que c’est ?” (litt. “What is it that it is ?”). It might seem too long, but it’s pronounced [kɛskəse], which has the same number of syllables as “What is it”. It is redundant tho, so I understand why “C’est quoi ?”, which doesn’t sound like anything else, rolls off the tongue and has two syllables is winning over, and will probably be the correct way in the future, but it still kinda sounds wrong to me.

French (native), English (fluent), Spanish (a bit less than fluent). Started learning Japanese at one point and quit. Can still speak and understand some, but I’ve given up on learning kanjis. Understand a’d speak some Haitian creole (also less than fluent).

No

No.

Actually, I’m pretty sure the main character of real life is a girl I know. Unfortunately, revealing infos about her at this point might he harmful to the plot.

New copypasta just dropped