Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The Martian when the main airlock blows up.
He ends up taping a plastic sheet over the hole with what I assume is super strong space tape and plastic and then continues to live in the station for 550 more days.
We spend the first half of the movie learning how unforgiving the environment is, and how delicate his ecosystem for life is, but you can also blow half the place up and just tape some plastic over the hole.
They did a much better job of explaining it in the book, but the movie literally went "just tape that bitch up with plastic, then we'll throw a wind storm at it to prove it's good forever"
Another big plot hole in the Martian, also present in the book, is that messages are encoded in hexadecimal. But then why did he have a separate question mark card, when all punctuation can be encoded in ASCII/hex? Also ~~both him and~~NASA wrote in all caps. Again they have a full ascii set. Makes no sense.
I found this post hilarious.
At least they threw the wind storm at it, LOL.
How did the book handle it?
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
So, in the book:
When he's making water out of hydrazine from the MDV, he gets the process a little wrong and accidentally causes an explosion. This slightly stresses the canvas around one of the three airlocks. He prefers to use that airlock to the other two because it's the closest to the rover chargers, so he uses that one the most. Every time he cycles the airlock, it slightly expands and contracts, repeatedly stressing the canvas until it fails.
The resulting explosion hurls the airlock over 100 meters from the HAB, cracks the airlock and in the resulting tumble he bashes in his EVA suit's helmet. So he fixes the crack with duct tape, cuts his space suit's arm off, uses the resin from a patch kit to glue the arm material over the broken helmet (in the movie the helmet is kind of cracked and he tapes over it) so he has to go into the wrecked HAB, get one of the other space suits, change in one of the rovers, then fix the HAB.
It is established that the mission was designed to survive a HAB breach, and was supplied with spare canvas and adhesive resin to make repairs, which he did. He had to reduce the height of the ceiling in that section of the HAB to make it fit, and from then on he alternated use of the other two airlocks.
The book kicked a lot more of the shit out of Watney. The movie doesn't even mention killing Pathfinder, the dust storm enroute to the MAV or rolling the rover over.
That's a great write-up response, thanks!
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
Space age hyper-tough epoxy.
And the plastic cover?
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
IIRC, the same canvas material the rest of the habitation was made out of.
I believe that is correct.
In the book, they also took pains to point out the steps he took to try to avoid it happening to the other airlocks after that point too - by actually balancing out their usage a bit more, instead of just always using the same one.
It's a delusion that including that link on your posts carries additional power of copyright on the content of the post under the terms of the linked license and will somehow stop any commercial entity from harvesting that data.
Dear astroturfers, are we going to do this each and every day?
It's already been talked to death.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
People calling you out for being wrong isn't astroturfing. It's not an anti-AI licence and by definition does not restrict use (including AI-related) more than standard automatic copyright.
There's been plenty of astroturfing going on in the last week. Not all comments are, but some are, and they have been repeating daily (can almost set a watch to it). In fact, they've been kind of sloppy and over the top in some cases. Didn't think a Creative Commons license would trigger some astroturfer so badly, but apparently they really fear people using a license with their content/comments.
And as far as calling me out, constantly doing so over and over again, repeating the same points endlessly, is not something that is just 'calling me out for being wrong', that's harassment/bullying. I've heard/talked to the people who disagree with me, so there's no reason for them to repeat themselves to me endlessly and following me around from community to community, on a daily basis. Especially when by them following me they derail conversations in posts I've commented on (unless you want to explain to me how using a Creative Commons license is related to "What plot holes could be adequately explained away with a single shot or line of dialogue?").
The place to discuss this issue is here: https://lemmy.world/post/14942506
It talks about non vs commercial usage right in the license, so you are incorrect (and I'm betting not a lawyer also). Also, I got that name from someone else who also uses the license, so at least one other person agrees with me. Finally, it has restrictions in it that are not mentioned in the standard automatic copyright.
Besides all that, WTF is it to you? What business of this is yours? Are you some kind of 'commercial' police making sure commercialism is not slandered or something? Its a weird thing to get hung up on, let alone try to abolish/remove.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
It says it right there in plain English, it only grants copyright permission where they need your permission anyway. The restrictions are to the additional rights you grant, it does not revoke other parties' already existing rights unless they invoke this licence to use your work. The licence does not restrict commercial use for people not invoking the licence. It's incredibly unlikely anyone "fears" you giving them more rights.
If you keep hearing the same arguments maybe you should consider what they're saying instead of instantly dismissing them as astroturfers for disagreeing with you? Do any of them actually complain about the fact you're licencing your content or are they complaining that you're saying the licence does something it does not do?
As for "what business it is" of mine; this is a public forum. If you're not ready to defend yourself don't spread misinformation.
You left out the part about the commercial usage. But then again, you are not a lawyer.
From the license...
Listen, we're not going to agree on this. If you want to keep replying about it, I can keep telling you I disagree with you, and we can keep just keep going around in circles, forever.
Or we can just agree to disagree, and move on.
But in either case, I'm going to continue to use the license in my comments/content.
I'm not, and debating/discussing is not the same as being harassed/bullied.
There's already a post in a community where this is being discussed, and there's no reason to derail other posts in other communities.
If you have more to say to me about the subject, say it there...
https://lemmy.world/comment/9850401
Otherwise, Feel. Free. To. Block. Me.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
You're entirely missing the point; you are under no obligation to follow the rules for a licence you did not agree to. The CC licence restrictions apply only to those who use that licence to use your work.
I licence a work to Alice for display in one commercial location only. I licence the same work to Bob for display non-commercially, who then displays it in a different location. Charlie has no licence, but reproduces part of the work using fair use doctrine as part of a paid review. Alice's use breaches Bob's licence; Alice did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Bob's use breaches Alice's licence; Bob did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Charlie's use breaches both licences; Charlie does not need a licence at all so is not in breach of copyright.
Agree to disagree, and moving on.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
What? It's called a licensing agreement for a reason; both parties must agree. It's like any other written contract, if you never agreed to it you are not bound by it's rules. That's simply a fact, choosing to disagree with that is like choosing to disagree that two comes after one. You're just wrong.
This is accurate under American copyright law. Usually the reason you don't maintain copyright on internet posts is because the site you're posting on reserves the copyright for itself. Not on most Lemmy instances, though.
Those old Facebook posts with similar language were stupid. Users already gave away the license to Facebook. Cannot give away what you do not have.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/10800658
I guess you're going to create one of those special licenses of yours for ProPublica as well. You better let them know that that license doesn't do anything for them either. /s
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
You did see where a ProPublica post was made here on Lemmy, and used a Creative Commons license on the post, right?
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
https://lemmy.world/comment/9850401
You already had the link, as you've already replied to it elsewhere, but I'll just include it again above here for you.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-you-or-your-newsroom-can-republish-propublicas-stories-515
Well someone has to post it on Lemmy. So it's not just some guy.
Look at that above link, it backs up what I'm saying.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
The only explanation for the wind storm and the tape is that the atmosphere had already been teraformed to be much much thicker, to the point that its at a survivable pressure for breathing, the only problem is lack of oxygen and too cold.
Isn't there something like the gravity on Mars is so low that even though there are massive dust storms with fast winds, they feel like a gentle breeze, and would never be able to topple a solid object, let alone a space ship.
Yeah, but it's air pressure, not gravity.