Stack Exchange
log in

planetmaker

 Discussion on question by katut: Use …

Imported from a comment discussion on space.stackexchange.com/...
planetmaker
Jan 12 18:16
@Starship I disagree with that assessment, and so we probably will have to agree to disagree :) IMHO it's the task of more experienced users to guide new ones to how things work here - and rephrasing questions to become more suitable is part of this.
planetmaker
Jan 12 18:16
@Starship for that reason I left the comment as to the intention of my edit (suggestion), and to show the author of what (at least I) consider the same question albeit without the subjective aspect which did make the original question not suitable for this site. IMHO this phrasing will allow more objective answers to this fundamentally interesting question and which will answer the same question to the OP.
 

 Discussion on answer by planetmaker: …

Imported from a comment discussion on opensource.stackexchange...
planetmaker
Nov 27, 2024 14:09
@SUTerliakov on the same line I have every right to use a knife how I want (and within the legal limits). It still doesn't allow me to cut a slice from the steak of my neighbour without their consent.
planetmaker
Nov 27, 2024 14:09
@SUTerliakov Ignorance is not an excuse for liability.
planetmaker
Nov 27, 2024 14:09
@Miller usually you will have a server with the API running for test services (or conditions under which you can run tests on the API) if custom clients to interact with it are expected. There is no need to hide the API, and in an open source software you cannot hide the client-side version of the API (because then it wouldn't be open source - though you might do that if you'd go for a permissive license... but that would put the whole open source client into the domain of questionable utility for anyone)
planetmaker
Nov 27, 2024 14:09
Ok, thanks. I added your very concise summary to this answer :)
planetmaker
Nov 27, 2024 14:09
@BartvanIngenSchenau yes, exactly. Do I miss to make that clear?
 

 Discussion on question by JohnWDailey…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
planetmaker
Nov 25, 2024 02:56
@Escapeddentalpatient. any creation myth or "holy text" is just that. So thanks, but no thanks.
planetmaker
Nov 25, 2024 02:56
@Escapeddentalpatient. Exactly the latter: Magic could just be a tech far beyond the current knowledge of those who witness it
planetmaker
Nov 25, 2024 02:56
@Escapeddentalpatient. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (Arthur C. Clarke). I think he got a very good point - or try to explain a modern smart phone or a laser beam or a microwave to a person living 500 years ago.
 

 Discussion on question by Silkly: Acc…

Imported from a comment discussion on opensource.stackexchange...
planetmaker
May 3, 2024 15:43
@Silkly MIT is a source code license. Thus if you receive a binary built from the MIT-licensed sources, it doesn't give you any right to obtain the sources. This is different for licenses with a strong copyleft (like GPL) which require that the sources are offered or made available to recipients of the (binary) software at least on request.
 

 Discussion on question by Dancerofthe…

Imported from a comment discussion on astronomy.stackexchange....
planetmaker
Sep 27, 2023 01:57
@DanceroftheStars you should round your result values to as many significant digits as you use input values. Your input stellar luminosity are at most 2 significant digits (or how accurate do you think are the 20 solar luminosities for an a-star type? Could be 18, could be 22... depending on chemistry, exact sub-type etc, so 10% at an optimistic estimate)... so anything more accurate than 4.2 to 6.1 AU is giving the impression of an accuracy you don't have at the start.
 

 Discussion on question by Marcin: Exp…

Imported from a comment discussion on astronomy.stackexchange....
planetmaker
Sep 23, 2023 17:50
using quotes / quotation marks in a discussion helps to distinguish what is your statement and what is the statement you refer to or argue about.
 

 Discussion on question by Hansel: Exp…

Imported from a comment discussion on german.stackexchange.com...
planetmaker
Aug 17, 2023 05:57
@Hansel you quote "Die Gedanken sind frei". Exactly that statement is NOT related to the flag you fly, but the movement which coined that term flew black-red-golden, thus the current flag of Germany. So choose your allegiance wisely, you show the colours of "you can have any opinion as long as it is equal to mine". Not liberal at all, but imperialistic, revanchistic and possibly and finally fashistic
planetmaker
Aug 17, 2023 05:57
@rdbury dwds.de/wb/Biedermann but the main reference is Max Frisch's famous novel 'Biedermann und die Brandstifter'. It's part of many school curricula for good reason. In essence: enable the bad and worse in innocuous and innocent disguise ('I don't do anything bad or forbidden!'). Not everything not forbidden needs to be tolerated. Wehe den Anfängen
 

 Discussion on question by Rohit Pande…

Imported from a comment discussion on astronomy.stackexchange....
planetmaker
Aug 7, 2023 03:18
No. A moon equal or bigger in apparent size is.
planetmaker
Aug 7, 2023 03:18
He doesn't say total eclipse are recent. He says equal size is geological recent.
planetmaker
Aug 7, 2023 03:18
Please read these answers again carefully. And think about the geometry, and what it means for the likelyhood of a big Lunar disk eclipsing the Sun vs. one which is just as big as the sun
planetmaker
Aug 7, 2023 03:18
Simply no. There is no 'too close' in this setup for an eclipse to happen.I'm not sure what you read into JamesK's comment.
 

 Discussion on question by Ed_Gravy: W…

Imported from a comment discussion on astronomy.stackexchange....
planetmaker
Jul 18, 2023 18:27
There is a difference between "the object moves" and "the space expands".
 

 Discussion on answer by planetmaker: …

Imported from a comment discussion on opensource.stackexchange...
planetmaker
May 16, 2023 09:08
@jpa yes, sure. But you also cannot un-see or un-know what you know. So even with the best of intentions you might create a derivative - not worth the potential hassle.
planetmaker
May 16, 2023 09:08
You once looked at the GPL sources. You can not do a clean-room implementation of it as you cannot un-see what you once saw. Clean-room means you never looked at the sources and only try to re-create the behaviour you can observe from the compiled programme or for a library from the published API for digestion of programmes which want to use it
 

 Discussion on question by Peter Bernh…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
planetmaker
Nov 27, 2022 12:18
Both apples impact at the same time with the same velocity as they experience the same acceleration. The difference will be in the impact energy due to the difference in mass. That will result in a different force excerted on the surfaces. You are happily mixing concepts and words and doing so thus add to your confusion.
planetmaker
Nov 27, 2022 12:18
The premise of your first paragraph is already wrong: All bodies behave under acceleration the same, be it feather or hammer. This is for instance one of the famous experiments conducted during Apollo 11 mission (the fall equally fast - but has been proven hundrets of years ago e.g. by Galileo Galilei, and is also one of the base postulations of Newtonian gravity)
 

 Discussion on question by Ricky: Has …

Imported from a comment discussion on astronomy.stackexchange....
planetmaker
Jul 9, 2022 17:46
"No matter how slow the process of star formation may be, there must always come a moment when a budding star enters a registerable new phase." <-- what makes you sure that this assumption holds? When is a person not a child but an adolescent when a grown up? Is there such moment which defines the transition (which is not arbitrarily chosen by 'birthday' but by just looking at them)?
planetmaker
Jul 9, 2022 17:46
Analogy with a limb, but still: When you see a tree grow, what is the significant point that it grows or a new phase starts to transition from seedling to tree? What is the point that the leaves in a new year start to grow?
 

 Discussion between planetmaker and ba…

Imported from a comment discussion on german.stackexchange.com...
planetmaker
Jun 3, 2022 10:41
dwds.de/r/plot/… zeigt eindeutig, dass "Bibliothek" das um mehrfach gebräuchlichere Wort ist - seit Jahrhunderten. Hinzu kommt, dass Schreibung und Aussprache dem typisch Deutschen entsprechen. Das kann man von Library noch lange nicht sagen. Von Majonäse vs. Mayonnaise kann man demzufolge zu Recht behaupten, dass es in den letzen Jahrzehnten sich vom Fremdwort zum eingedeutschten Wort entwickelt hat.
planetmaker
Jun 3, 2022 10:41
Insofern helfen im eigentlichen Sinne Jahreszahlen oder Zeiträume nicht weiter, sondern der Gebrauch, in Hinsicht auf Schreibung als auch Grammatik. Insofern ist nicht ersichtlich, warum man "Bibliothek" den Status eines Fremdwortes zuweisen will und kann. Dass es Ursprung im Griechischen hat, tut dabei wenig zur Sache.
planetmaker
Jun 3, 2022 10:41
Exactly. But "Bibliothek" is not a foreign word. That's where the argument fails: the premise is already not true (anymore). We don't live in the 16th century anymore. The argument more generally is to introduce (new) foreign words because they add to understanding, or use an existing word (and possibly broaden or change its meaning in a particular context). The main consideration should always be: choose the word which serves best, both your audience's understanding and your purpose.
planetmaker
Jun 3, 2022 10:41
While your answer is an interesting read and could do as an essay, yet I think it misses the question and (or even because) it is wrong on the presumption that "Bibliothek" is an uncommon and foreign-perceived word to the German language - the opposite is true.
 

 Discussion on answer by jonathan.scho…

Imported from a comment discussion on german.stackexchange.com...
planetmaker
May 1, 2022 10:21
+1 Gute Erklärung. Und: den Witz kannte ich noch nicht, aber der ist klasse!
 

 Discussion on answer by Philip Kendal…

Imported from a comment discussion on opensource.stackexchange...
planetmaker
Apr 27, 2022 18:06
OK, no doubt they do that. But do they really call permissive licenses 'non-free' (which they must, if they are not free). I somewhat doubt that.
planetmaker
Apr 27, 2022 17:28
Can someone explain to me on which ground "MIT - licensed software is not free" can be argued? @PhilipKendall @siebetman Can you link me to the distinction, please (I know the OSI definition of OSS). What is hence free? Only public domain / CC-0?
 

 Discussion on question by user253751:…

Imported from a comment discussion on opensource.stackexchange...
planetmaker
Jul 22, 2021 19:04
"a 3rd party interface definition file" which you need to compile is as such part of the source code and you are required to be able to supply it (or it would have to be part of a compatibly-licensed framework, otherwise you would not be able to rely on it legally in the first place as a dependency).
 

 Discussion on answer by Deschele Schi…

Imported from a comment discussion on astronomy.stackexchange....
planetmaker
Jun 25, 2021 14:36
@DescheleSchilder you should learn about the choice of appropriate coordinate systems. Just because the plane of motion can be arbitrarily oriented doesn't mean you have all three degrees of freedom.
planetmaker
Jun 25, 2021 14:36
You look at a different problem than the OP asks about. The OP asks about a well-defined problem with a limit wrt mass ratios and about a limitations of the relative movement options.
planetmaker
Jun 25, 2021 14:36
No, the words are explained. And then a conclusion is drawn in the last two paragraphs / sentences.
planetmaker
Jun 25, 2021 14:36
@DescheleSchilder the OP clearly does not think that. "restricted circular coplanar three body problem" is a well-defined term from theoretical mechanics and not open to free interpretation. Peter's answer basically explains the wording. And then draws the appropriate conclusion for the dimensionality of the problem.
planetmaker
Jun 25, 2021 14:36
@DescheleSchilder he's confused about what he asks: the number of degrees of freedoms, thus the independent variables of their problem. Given the exact words they asked about, Peter's answer is absolutely correct and given the wording of the question there's not much room for interpretation to generalize it to real bodies with real masses and real extent and spin and movement out of the orbital plane of the two main bodies.
 

 Discussion on question by Barbierium:…

Imported from a comment discussion on astronomy.stackexchange....
planetmaker
Jun 5, 2021 19:41
I’m voting to close this question because it's philosophy or region but does not involve astronomy as a science or historical topic
 

 Discussion on answer by planetmaker: …

Imported from a comment discussion on opensource.stackexchange...
planetmaker
May 11, 2021 14:48
Yes, true, if it is immediate clear that A did release it themselves under an OSS license, and being aware of that (thus not a mistake), I follow your argument.
planetmaker
May 11, 2021 11:37
That it will be legal in some places to set a trap of releasing code in the intention of harming others who use it under a (open source) license you then revoke. Of course I realise the intention part will in most cases be very hard to prove and it will go through as negligence, mistake or similar (with the result that the OSS license might be valid after all or not - depends on exact case).
planetmaker
May 11, 2021 10:19
I see. I find that hard to believe, yet... it's law and many things are possible :) I changed my wording in the posting
planetmaker
May 11, 2021 07:58
The 2nd case looks very similar to the 1st, if the release is not made in another entities identiy - and the defence then could always be it was released in error. Yet then the ruling might come that it was released for too long and you are responsible for your own actions as others have received the software under a valid open-source license. But that's then civil law between the companies and possibly also between the company and one/some of its employees - civil law varies much more
planetmaker
May 11, 2021 07:56
There's a difference there. Consider these two cases:
1) A releases the code under a free license. Later it redacts the license and says 'that was an error and should not have happend". There is no criminal offence in this. Mistakes happen. Yet a 3rd party might still be required to remove usage of that software or not - the details depend on circumstance and jurisdiction. This is IMHO the case you mean - and where an "of course it's criminal" does not apply
2) A releases the software as free-software, intentionally and willfully, maybe even in disguise under a different identity with the i…
planetmaker
May 11, 2021 07:26
@MadHatter are you telling me to go "someone else put my stuff here under a free license" (while you did so yourself) and then go "now I can sue you for damages" is legal anywhere? (That, and only that is the case where I see a criminal infraction in the direction of fraud) - maybe we can move this to chat. I have somewhat the feeling we mean the same but talk past eachother on grounds of language barrier or so; if that's not the case, I'm happy to learn a finer difference on this case, too :)
planetmaker
May 11, 2021 07:26
@Madhatter Basically what I say in the 1st sentence of my 3rd paragraph is the equivalent of the estoppel: if something persists long enough that you could reasonably rely on it being legal, you can (sometimes) get by with continuing to do so. The OP asked about this method for both, happen for negligence as well as as means to trip others willfully, too - thus my reference to criminal law (even when I don't have a case at hand right now)
planetmaker
May 11, 2021 07:26
@eeucalyptus Sure, a crime such as fraud needs to be proven committed in court. Negligence or accidents happen and are not (necessarily) criminally punishable. Then there is no case, or a civil one at most. The fraud paragraph answers the part of the question for doing so 'accidentially' to cause harm
planetmaker
May 11, 2021 07:26
@Madhatter In Germany such behaviour would be punishable under the fraud clause (§263 StGB): It's illegal to pretend one thing which is not true in order to gain (monetary or other) advantage or cause harm to someone else. That's punishable with up to 10 years of prison in Germany. (Yes, I know it was asked for US... but fraud should be punishable everywhere)
 

 Discussion on answer by planetmaker: …

Imported from a comment discussion on opensource.stackexchange...
planetmaker
Apr 12, 2021 03:29
That said, it totally eludes me how one can be o with code being completely shut away and relicensed in proprietary solutions but not being OK with it being used in a competing solution in a copyleft project. In both cases the license of the original code remains permissive. But should the original source of the permissive project vanish, there remains nothing in the proprietary case, and in the copyleft case you still have something left to build on a the sources will be available