so how is "a Jupiter-sized planet orbiting a tiny star that is only four times the size of the solar system gas giant." and "The extrasolar planet, or "exoplanet," orbits a red dwarf " newsworthy?

>...kinks in the AI algorithm...

would there be a part of that algorithm that touches on any known aspect of actual alien life? because, without having experienced or interacted with an actual alien; it won't ever know what it's looking for. right?

its like asking AI which dress i'll wear when i've never once worn a dress: the return is going to be a random guess or null.

I can only speculate. Possibilities that come to mind (which might not be popular):

• Inefficient/interfering management

• Insufficient expertise among employees

• Customer "moving the goalposts"

• A design quirk making realization difficult

I'm sure there are other possibilities.

It's brown dwarfs specifically that are failed stars.

Is there any more proof needed that science.com can't be taken seriously with these headlines and articles saying "forbidden" and "should not exist"? Tabloid trash.

I just hope there's a robot that can make booze.

[removed]

Oh sweet! You can join me on my trip. I'm taking my mineral collection and we can make petri dishes out of our armpit sweat. I've already got over 378 petri dishes going and I can't wait to see how yours compares to mine.

Once we get there, I'm going to set up my speaker system and play tibetan throat music while I mediate out loud.

I think we'll have the best of time, especially since it'll be just the two of us.

What does this refute?

r/unexpectedfuturama is leaking.

They found Batboy?!?!

[removed]

Oh you'll get there. Just not in a living state.

A very real chance. Forget the statistics, thats for mathematicians and they never space travel.

The Forbidden planet, in the system of doom, in the galaxy of no return.

Sounds nice.

[removed]

[removed]

I don't like calling gas giant "failed stars". There are two ways to define a planet (at the high mass end; edit: 3 ways, see lower comment):

1. If it formed from core accretion in a disk, it's a planet. (Conversely, if it formed from disk instability and gravitational collapse, it's not a planet.)
2. If it's under the mass required to fuse deuterium (~13 Jupiter masses), it's a planet.

Both definitions have pros and cons. Since we typically think of gas giants as planets that formed via core accretion, I wouldn't call any of them "failed stars" since they form completely differently than actual stars.

However, if a nominal gas giant formed via disk instability/gravitational collapse, but doesn't burn regular hydrogen, then "failed star" is appropriate.

I invite you to look at what this discussion devolved into, and factor in pollution, global warming, decling biodiversity, etc. It's not like we have a lot of time. At this rate, the more interesting question is who drowns or bakes first. We're generating enough heat to actually delay what should be an encroaching ice age, according to the science we think we know.

I think you're an optimist. Shrugs.

So "size" in this context means radius of the star vs. planet, not the mass, area, or volume.

I think calling it "forbidden" is very hyperbolic. It's at the extreme end of what we know, but it's not unreasonable for it to form as such under current planet formation theories given reasonable uncertainties and variability.

[removed]

I feel like when it actually is aliens, everyone's just going to say, likely not aliens.

[removed]

All signals from space are from stellar events, the energy scale of which cannot be replicated by life as per known physics. If there are, then leave the discovering of us to them as they are likely to be more efficient.

I wonder why they had so many problems with that engine, slipping the deadline again and again. Really, it's yet another oxygen-rich staged combustion engine, even simpler than the dual-chamber RD-180 it replaces. The Raptor is doing fine, and it's a much more complicated engine to engineer (full flow staged combustion).