4chan Search
16 results for "b4127f839c2c915e5a1743cad68f8b79"
I will wait patiently until the end of round 2 to see if more than 200 votes vanish from the voting pool.
>>545243235
you have to dox yourself as the payment.
you have to dox yourself as the payment.
>>545173493
you lost
you lost
We don't celebrate birthdays of racist losers who got abandoned by their mom.
I only reply to people who deserve it.
>>544630689
dox yourself first dr. Z
dox yourself first dr. Z
>>543867973
You still haven't told us what you want to prove.
You still haven't told us what you want to prove.
>>543092948
we can go 1v1 if you want
we can go 1v1 if you want
i saw you Matthew.
why did you leave after 1 second
why did you leave after 1 second
>>542769556
I truly wonder who could be behind this post
I truly wonder who could be behind this post
>sloppa
>>542359052
worthless
worthless
You need to listen to me anon, I'm from the future. You have to skip every single operator and go for max pot Strategist Vanguard SilverAsh, I mean this guy is insane, he can halve your operators cost and redeploy time after his talent maxes out, along with buffing their atk just by being in the team, and that's without even mentioning his skills.
>>534307372
>>534307883
Replies to the two comments
>“Sun is not a reactor, the same way a nuclear bomb or a river are not reactors.”
>If your definition demands engineered control, this is correct. A bomb is an uncontrolled burst lasting microseconds; a river involves no nuclear reaction at all. By that yardstick the Sun—uncontrolled and un-engineered—doesn’t qualify either. The counter-point is that the Sun’s reaction is continuous and self-regulated by gravity, unlike a bomb’s brief flash, so the analogy isn’t perfect.
>“Anyone science-minded thinks of the Sun as a nuclear reactor anyway. ‘Where is your fusion plant bro’ — it’s right there in the sky.”
> As shorthand, this is perfectly reasonable: the Sun is the best working example of sustained fusion we have. Just remember that calling it a “reactor” glosses over the practical gap between a naturally confined, 15-million-degree stellar core and the human-scale devices we’re still trying to perfect on Earth.
Bottom line:
>Whether the Sun “is” a reactor hinges on what you consider essential—human construction and control (answer: no), or merely a self-sustaining nuclear process that outputs energy (answer: yes).
>>534307883
Replies to the two comments
>“Sun is not a reactor, the same way a nuclear bomb or a river are not reactors.”
>If your definition demands engineered control, this is correct. A bomb is an uncontrolled burst lasting microseconds; a river involves no nuclear reaction at all. By that yardstick the Sun—uncontrolled and un-engineered—doesn’t qualify either. The counter-point is that the Sun’s reaction is continuous and self-regulated by gravity, unlike a bomb’s brief flash, so the analogy isn’t perfect.
>“Anyone science-minded thinks of the Sun as a nuclear reactor anyway. ‘Where is your fusion plant bro’ — it’s right there in the sky.”
> As shorthand, this is perfectly reasonable: the Sun is the best working example of sustained fusion we have. Just remember that calling it a “reactor” glosses over the practical gap between a naturally confined, 15-million-degree stellar core and the human-scale devices we’re still trying to perfect on Earth.
Bottom line:
>Whether the Sun “is” a reactor hinges on what you consider essential—human construction and control (answer: no), or merely a self-sustaining nuclear process that outputs energy (answer: yes).