So did anyone else read this in Silver’s voice from the Sonic '06 fandub?

This is so true. But your title is fewer than 20 characters. Under Rule 7, Amendment 6 § 38.5(b), you’re hereby banned from every community I moderate.

Just bend and glue them to make a toroidal sandwich.

A spherical sandwich would just be a 3-ball of air surrounded by a 2-sphere with the following layers: bread (inner), contents (middle), bread (outer). You could also have a 3-sphere sandwich – homeomorphic to a calzone which has a little 3-ball of bread in its center.

OP, you linked to the comments instead of the top of the article. 💀

Aren’t you that smarmy, confidently incorrect asshat that recently got clowned on by like seven Germans?

I’m not agreeing with their dumb point, but just pointing out: this satellite works on radar. I’m genuinely concerned how many people seem to be commenting without reading the article.

I don’t know why you’re assuming their ‘/s’ is alluding to sarcasm around this being surveillance versus sarcasm around needing more surveillance. “We need more surveillance (we actually don’t)” seems to be indicated here, not “This is surveillance (it actually isn’t)”.

Especially when Reddit types are notoriously, chronically unable to read articles before they go spouting uninformed bullshit in the comments.

Did you read the part where this is a radar satellite designed for monitoring the climate? That is, did you read anything besides the headline before you decided: “Yeah, I think I’m able to make informed commentary about this”?

🎵 It takes a lot to make a stew 🎵

That wasn’t me you were talking to initially; that was TheLeadenSea. You’ll have to ask them, not me.

Fucking thank you. Yes, experienced editor to add to this: that’s called the lead, and that’s exactly what it exists to do. Readers are not even close to starved for summaries:

• Every single article has one of these. It is at the very beginning – at most around 600 words for very extensive, multifaceted subjects. 250 to 400 words is generally considered an excellent window to target for a well-fleshed-out article.
• Even then, the first sentence itself is almost always a definition of the subject, making it a summary unto itself.
• And even then, the first paragraph is also its own form of summary in a multi-paragraph lead.
• And even then, the infobox to the right of 99% of articles gives easily digestible data about the subject in case you only care about raw, important facts (e.g. when a politician was in office, what a country’s flag is, what systems a game was released for, etc.)
• And even then, if you just want a specific subtopic, there’s a table of contents, and we generally try as much as possible (without harming the “linear” reading experience) to make it so that you can intuitively jump straight from the lead to a main section (level 2 header).
• Even then, if you don’t want to click on an article and just instead hover over its wikilink, we provide a summary of fewer than 40 characters so that readers get a broad idea without having to click (e.g. Shoeless Joe Jackson’s is “American baseball player (1887–1951)”).

What’s outrageous here isn’t wanting summaries; it’s that summaries already exist in so many ways, written by the human writers who write the contents of the articles. Not only that, but as a free, editable encyclopedia, these summaries can be changed at any time if editors feel like they no longer do their job somehow.

This not only bypasses the hard work real, human editors put in for free in favor of some generic slop that’s impossible to QA, but it also bypasses the spirit of Wikipedia that if you see something wrong, you should be able to fix it.

Okay, but I literally just expressed how they’re fundamentally, pragmatically different while you keep reaching for the word “semantics”. You can still disagree that it’s wrong to copy – that’s not what I’m trying to litigage. To call it only semantically different from stealing is asinine.

on the basis of semantics

It’s not semantics when “stealing” results in the loss of the original by the owner while “copying” just results in a new one being created.

TL;DR: ✨die mad✨

I’m not German and thought “huh, I’m not German; maybe I’m actually wrong, and I’m not going to overstep here”… And then the Germans arrived.

“Let’s nostalgia bait millennials who miss the Aero aesthetic.”

“Are these anti-Nazi protestors holding up a Star of David trying to protect democracy in Germany, or are they just trying to keep their family from being deported?”

🤡

That’s because every company’s strategy aiming to monopolize is to:

1. Make a product that’s genuinely better than what’s on the market for some role. Sometimes by undercutting competition at a loss, sometimes by making things very convenient, etc.
2. Once you’re big enough, make sure as you keep growing that new competition can’t pop up to challenge you. Kick the ladder down behind you, and make sure to start greasing the palms of lawmakers so they can’t challenge you in step 3.
3. Once you’re so big that you’ve monopolized the market and can’t be challenged no matter what you do (both because of ladder-kicking and because everyone uses you by default), do what you’ve been wanting to this whole time and go from “boiling frog”-pace enshittification to “welp, this sucks, but now I have nowhere else to go” enshittification.

It’s why people who say “Oh, well I wouldn’t mind it if X had a monopoly because they’re way better than those other companies” are so painfully misguided.

OP, Borderlands 2 recently had a rootkit added to it.

Yeah, and to be clear, I actually really like trivia! The front page of Wikipedia has a section called “Did You Know?” (DYK) that has six or seven pieces of daily trivia. These are also researched and follow a similar format. The key differences are that: 1) the corresponding article is right there if you want to immediately verify what’s been said, and 2) this article lets you understand the full context of the trivia if you want.

In this case, the most egregious part isn’t the trivia itself; it’s the kind of culture around trivia that it foments.