I believe you meant to say:

Let’s double-click on this; it feels more like a parallel trajectory than a direct-impact lever.

(kindly corpofied by Kagi Translate)

For me it’s interesting because I literally studied food tech and I like to learn about new applications of stuff. It’s also interesting to me because there will always be people who don’t want to reduce their meat consumption (I guess I’m in that camp too, although one visit to relatives shows me how I already eat way less meat than them), so if you can reduce the harm of the meat industry a little bit by adding insects to a product and it either isn’t even noticable or actively tastes better, that’s a win in my book. Establishing insect farms could also, in theory, be very cheap and wouldn’t require (much, if any) additional feed to be produced since they could just very cheaply (or maybe even at a profit) buy organic waste from recycling companies and food producers to use as their feed for the maggots.

No, for me and my wife it’s literally about the flavour/taste only. We often eat vegetarian or sometimes fully vegan meals, too. It’s just that we also do like to have the taste of meat sometimes. Yes, some meat-alternatives are relatively close, but not quite, especially when the alternative tries to mimic anything that’s not ground meat. I will be the biggest adopter of lab-grown meat if it ever makes it to a commercial scale.

Maybe there are those who, as you imply, get off on the hurt of animals, but I can’t imagine those are in the vast minority. With some people being so removed from food production they don’t even realise that the steak in the fridge used to be a living cow that was killed for them, I’m relatively certain that almost nobody thinks “Aww yeah, I’m showing these ruminants!” when they put the steak on the stove.

That’s odd indeed. Have you tried the recipes and are there any bangers in it?

Oh yes, I did read that sentiment elsewhere, too, and that’s pretty much the only way I can get behind the weird/nonsensical chemistry. It’s just a bit unfortunate that the reveal of the simulated (and melting reality) is explained only a couple dozen hours into the story. So I feel for the (admittedly small) subset of players who wrongly learn that this is how chemistry works before being able to make the mental leap that it’s possibly intentionally this weird and unrealistic.

Mhmm, although I can easily imagine it being representative of gamers who are interested enough in science to take part in surveys.

Speculation: It could be roughly okay to extrapolate the results to the greater NMS community, because their sample size and variety seems to mostly correlate to the age and geographic location of the gaming communities in USA, Brazil and Europe (the bulk of their respondents). Without knowing the actual numbers, I can imagine most of the NMS players sit in those three regions and with about a 2:1:1 ratio.

I watched it just yesterday and even though the maths gets over my head sometimes (especially here when she demonstrates the analytical solution with the Schrödinger equation thing), she’s really good at explaining these concepts.

The only thing I didn’t quite understand, and maybe I just didn’t pay attention in the video: If electrons aren’t particles but waves, what does it mean for an atom/molecule to have x electrons? Are “two electrons” just a more intense wave than “one electron”? And this electron wave… wouldn’t it constantly change its position due to it being a wave (stuff needs to move to create waves, right?) or is that what physicists are talking about when they say the probability of the electron to be at location y?

I’m pretty sure you meant tod as in “today”, but it’s doubly funny because “Tod” also means “Death” in German (among other regional languages, probably), so I read it as you lamenting your lack of steps and then just simply popping out of existence with a Black&White like “death” sound effect.