A per capita map would also be nice.

They’re right on this one. This picture here is pretty illuminating about the sizes of the views that Hubble captures:

Image source with additional reading. Zooming into an object a couple of meters in size on the surface of the Moon is in a completely different ballpark.

I’m no astronomer or astrophotographer, but this picture of the moon clocks in at around 320 meter angular resolution. That being said, a lot of post-processing goes into a shot like that, so some detail may be lost due to that. The atmosphere of the Earth is pretty difficult to deal with as its disturbances cause fuzziness and shimmering. Stacking multiple frames can help, but it’s still never perfect. Earth based telescopes sometimes shoot a laser up along their line of sight to get an idea of how the atmosphere is messing with them.

For comparison, The Hubble space telescope gets around 90 m angular resolution for objects at the distance of the Moon.

To build on this: The technology to fake it didn’t exist back then.

You’d need either the biggest space telescope ever that doesn’t yet exist, or a lunar orbiter. The latter is how other space agencies have taken pictures of the landing sites.

I did a two minute internet search and every result says that the Hubble doesn’t have the angular resolution for this. It could resolve a football field on the moon, but not anything smaller.

It was made to look at nebulae and galaxies, and those are a lot bigger, even in apparent size.

Focal distance doesn’t matter when the aperture is so infinitesimally small compared to the distances. All space telescopes are focused to infinity no matter what they’re observing up there.

I agree with your first paragraph, but not your edit. People just get attached to their comments. Nobody wants to see their (at least in their opinion) meticulously thought out debunk slamdunk of a comment ending up hidden or deleted. Even more so if making said comment took time and research for sources etc.

I’d say the correlation is pretty good even when accounting for population densities.

That is a good point.

Except that that might explain the slightly different alias on that line. Maybe it’s a message just like the rest, sent for the sake of the meme, and the alias just happened to get typed incorrectly…

The twitter user is an actual commercial pilot, and ACARS messages do look like that. Not sure what’s up with SKW2438/SKY2438 but otherwise it seems legit. I think faking it would be harder than actually doing this.

Edit: Here’s a picture of a much longer message in a more professional, non furry rp context:

Cruise missiles are usually shot down with interceptor missiles, which are a lot more expensive.

How’s he being an ally here? He’s just talking about some people who supposedly pulled themselves up by the bootstraps. Most likely in an attempt to prove that others in similar situations have only themselves to blame for not doing the same.

Ok sure, but hindus still don’t let that bother them.

I know you’re being sarcastic, but I just absolutely despise that mentality. People seriously think that it’s best to just roll over to the side and surrender every symbol the nazis want for themselves?

“Be the change you want to see in the world.”

Go team!

I don’t. I only regret deleting all of them and not leaving the wacky ones.

Private weather station?

It’s pretty much impossible to make reliable forecasts based on the data of a singular weather station. The initial data comes in from a variety of sources including satellites, radars, surface observation stations (weather stations) and upper air soundings around the globe. All of the above are maintained by public sector organizations who collaborate and share the data because the weather is an inescapably global thing. During WW2 the Germans actually set foot in Canada to set up a weather station in an attempt to spread the coverage of their observation network.

Nowadays all that data is used as inputs for numerical weather prediction models, running on supercomputers in the basements of meteorological institutes and agencies. Big global ones like ECMWF and GFS are used pretty much by all meteorologists around the world, who look at those and other smaller, more local models. They compare the different forecasts and critically evaluate the probabilities of different outcomes. They apply their own judgement selecting the most credible raw forecast and then edit that if needed. All in all, it’s a very global effort.

At least where myself and @Kusimulkku@lemm.ee are from, meteorologists at the public broadcasting company (where that title is a requirement for getting the job) collaborate closely with their colleagues at the national meteorological institute. Their job is to comprehend the situation as presented by the institute, decide which bits of it are important, and then boil that down into a smooth and easy to understand presentation.

If a weather reporter isn’t an actual meteorologist, then there is an actual meteorologist behind the scenes who made the presentation for the reporter to present.

Nah anarchists also fall within the “capitalism is working as intended and must be destroyed” camp. They just have different ways of doing it.