@DMGregory Yo, I took a stab at converting your answer to mathjax, but honestly, I'm not sure that the net result is better. If it's fine, it's fine. If you improve it further let me know so I can learn what else I might have done differently. BTW, there were a couple of typos, so if you do want to rollback, be aware. Thanks.

@Pikalek Thank you, I appreciate the improvements and corrections! :)

@DMGregory Your welcome. In addition to your post, there are some others in the 'convert to mathjax' list that I'm not sure how to approach. For instance, this one. Should I comment on the meta post about them, raise them as a new meta question, bring them up in chat?

@Pikalek I'd say chat might be simplest. If you prefer Meta, I think a new question is more visible than a comment.

twitch.tv/videos/469363320?t=29m48s

it has been hard not to talk about this one

Yeah, I had similar thoughts about commenting in meta. But I also feel like maybe I push too much to chat & by doing so, I'm not leaving enough of a trail for other who might run into similar problems later.

@Almo Nice!

:)

Are you allowed to discuss things like how many revisions it took to end up with that sequence? It's well put together. Sound design, lighting, & so forth are good, but don't get in your face saying "look at me, I'm a cool feature that took months of effort, notice meeeee!"

i.e. they don't pull me out of the experience.

I don't know anything about them making the trailer.

those are interesting questions though :)

@Almo WOW! I'll bet! :D Congratulations!

I had a similar experience keeping the secret that we were putting Star Fox in Starlink. ;) Feels great once you can show the fruits of your labour to the world. :D

@Pikalek One thing I might recommend is using subscripts for vector components, like v_x instead of vx or v.x, and using \cdot or juxtaposition for multiplication in a math expression rather than an asterisk. I think * reads fine for multiplication in code, but in math it's not as familiar an operator.

I think the edits you've made so far read just fine as-is, so I haven't changed them, but it might be worthwhile for future changes.

@DMGregory Ugh. yeah, I totally missed that those should have been subscripts. I've seen the meaning of * as an operator shift around a lot, so I was hesitant to mess with that, lest I inadvertently change the meaning - basically I figured not changing it had the least risk of breaking authorial intent. I went ahead and made the changes & already like it better than what I initially did. Thanks for the feedback.

@Pikalek Thanks for putting in the time to improve these posts!

Your welcome. BTW: is there a way to deliberately place edits into the review queue?

I think you raise a good point re: leaving a trail for other users to learn from. What about jotting down your findings/sharing here in chat as you make them, then once you have a critical mass of tips, post a new Meta Q&A documenting them in one batch?

@Pikalek Good question! I don't know of one off the top of my head, but I can look into it a little later

@DMGregory That's a good idea! #mathjax-edits

@Almo What is the name/url of the tool you used to make diagrams and such a while ago?

yed

All right thanks a lot!

:)

Right, so it turns out that if you want to apply impulse forces to objects, they need mass :P

Makes sense