Low skill users will use what comes installed on their machine, so installation quirks like that are not relevant for them. They don’t install Windows either.
What exactly is the utility of the above quote of yours then?
To show that the correlation is spurious at best.
Has it become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?
Yes, it has. Usage of Linux has been growing over the years.
My point is exactly that. It’s not obvious, and as such you can’t attribute the success of Linux to his behaviour. Like the OP said, there’s no logic in looking at something successful and picking a singular thing to be responsible.
How is that obvious? Especially because it’s become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?
The analogy is that the end result doesn’t justify the behaviour from the person in power. It’s apt.
But did it work because of the style or in spite of it? No reason to believe it wouldn’t be even more successful if he had been less abrasive like he is now.
It’s not a comparison, it’s an analogy. Important distinction.
Always upvote Feynman. Got me through some tough times in undergrad.
Quantum mechanics didn’t supersede electromagnetism. Again, they’re different things. Electromagnetism is a fundamental interaction. Whereas quantum mechanics describes the mechanics of quantum particles. Whether those particles are affected by electromagnetic forces or not. It’s a description of how they behave at quantum scales.
Coulomb’s law has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, it’s a description of how macroscopic charged particles interact. What the OP should have said to be correct is:
Awesome to see the similarities between: Newton’s law of gravitation and Coulomb’s law
I don’t know where he got quantum mechanics from.
They’re different things. The OP means electromagnetism, Coulomb’s law has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, it’s classical physics.
The relation between them is that they’re both forces that scale with the inverse square of the distance between the objects. Any force that scales with the inverse square of distance has pretty much the same general form.
Another similarity is that both are incomplete, first approximations that describe their respective forces. The more complete versions are Maxwell’s laws for electromagnetism and General Relativity for gravity.
It’s electromagnetism you mean, not quantum mechanics.
The Earth will always be here. We, on the other hand…
*sublemmy
Keep going, maybe you’ll get it right eventually.
Works perfectly on mine.
Very cool, very good proof of your claims.
I made no claims, I quoted from the wikipedia link you posted for us, which you may have not read yourself. You’re clearly a bigger expert than the IPCC though, so I wouldn’t even dare to make claims in your presence.
Some argue that transitioning to 100% renewable energy would be too slow to limit climate change, and that closing down nuclear power stations is a mistake.[122][123]
“Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched”. The Economist. 6 March 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 31 January 2022. McDonnell, Tim (3 January 2022).
“Germany’s exit from nuclear energy will make its power dirtier and more expensive”. Quartz. Retrieved 31 January 2022.
In November 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with their fifth report, saying that in the absence of any one technology (such as bioenergy, carbon dioxide capture and storage, nuclear, wind and solar), climate change mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on which technology is absent.
Azores is UTC-1 anyway.