u/BigGuyWhoKills

Is there a setting I can toggle to not lose the media library view/selection when an album finishes playing?

I usually play music using the 3-pane (artist-album-tracks) media library view. First I select the artist, then I double-click the album to play the entire album (via the "Plays selected item(s)" double-click option in Preferences->Media Library).

When that album plays to completion and I open the media library again (toggle window-pane mode), the artist is no longer selected in the upper-left pane. The album is still selected in the upper-right pane. But the album pane shows every album by every artist. This makes it more difficult to select the next album in their discography.

I'm running version 1.99.54.24960, public, 32-bit. The build date says Aug 30 instead of the Aug 31 which is listed as the latest public version.

I have "Remember search filters & custom search input in the views" checked in Preferences->Media Library->Local Library->View Filters, but I don't think that applies to this.

Some use crepuscular rays as evidence of a local sun. I'm not sure why some cannot grasp that it is common for parallel lines to appear to converge.

Here is a video showing how parallel lines appear to converge. You see similar examples all the time, but probably don't think much about it.

When you are "between" the rays, they appear to converge. When you are able to look at the rays from a perpendicular angle, they appear parallel. The same thing happens with train tracks and everyone grasps it. So why is this different?

The video and images are not mine. The video went around the community a few months ago. If someone knows who made any of those, let me know so I can give credit.

I want to make a test bench for my Hobby King HK450. It would be clamped to the test bench and powered by a 12 volt 30 amp power supply.

I know what ground resonance is, but have only experienced it a few times. Each time was very minor. I also know the solution for it is to lift off (or shut down if the rotors don't have much energy in them at the time).

With a test bench, lifting off would be impossible, so the plan is to never run more than about 30% throttle. I would also use only collective. This would be controlled with an ESP32, so keeping the servos in sync would be simple (once their travel limits have been properly set).

I will also use a 3-axis accelerometer to detect excessive vibration. When detected, it will cut power and set collective to negative 5° (alternative suggestions are welcome). I don't have dampeners figured out, but intend to have them between the wall-mounted workbench and this test bench.

Is this test bench a bad idea? Will it tear itself apart in just a few minutes? Or are my precautions adequate to make it worth the risk?

This post is to clear up a common misconception amongst flatties:

• Rotation is measure in angular units such as rotations per minute (RPM), degrees per second (°/s), or radians per second (rad/s).

• They are not measure using linear rates like miles per hour (MPH) or kilometers per hour (KPH).

If you want to compare the rotation of two things, especially when they are at different scales, you should use angular rates and not linear rates.

I've recently seen a few comments in other posts about "water sticking to a spinning ball" and thought that I'd post something about it.

We've probably all heard the Earth spins at 1,000 MPH. That is a very ignorant way of describing the rotational rate of the Earth for a few reasons:

• It is only valid at specific latitudes (as you approach the poles the linear speed approaches zero)
• It ignores the scale of the Earth (complicating its translation to any example or experiment)
• It is not used professionally (have you ever purchased a drill that listed it's rotational speed in MPH?)

To flatties: this is important when trying to debunk the globe model. You must use the same rotational rate to properly compare your experiment with the globe. Misrepresenting the globe model is a form of the strawman fallacy. Technically, you must also have no other significant gravitational sources nearby. But that's not the purpose of this post.

We often hear from flat earthers that "water is flat". Some even say things like "Physics proves water is flat". But I've never been able to get any evidence from a flat earther to back up this claim.

So here's your chance! Post your evidence for flat water. But remember, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In other words, the inability of you to show curvature doesn't mean it isn't there.

Most flat earthers believe the sun to be about 3,100 miles above the Earth. If that were so, some observations would be apparent. Here is one to consider...

On a flat Earth:

1. For someone at the equator with the sun overhead, it would be only 3,100 miles away from them.
2. For a 2nd person who is also at the equator, but far enough away for the sun to be setting, the first person would be about 6,000 miles away and the sun would now be 6,753 miles away calculator.
3. But 6 hours earlier, the sun was only 3,100 miles away from person 2. That means it is now more than twice as far away (a change of 121%).
4. Perspective requires that when something moves twice as far away, its apparent (angular) height decreases by half and its apparent (angular) width decreases by half.

But this apparent size change has never been observed. Nowhere in the world. This implies that either perspective is wrong, or the sun is significantly farther away.

On a globe Earth:

1. For someone at the equator with the sun overhead, it would be only 93,000,000 miles away from them.
2. For a 2nd person who is also at the equator, but 1/4 of the way around the globe (where the sun is setting), the sun would be 93,012,000 miles away from them (a change of 0.0129%).

That small of a size change would be almost impossible to detect.

I live in a valley.

The West mountains are significantly shorter than the East mountains.

On clear days at sunset, the shadow of the West mountains climbs up the East mountains.

That shadow eventually reaches a point on the East mountains that is the same height as the West mountains.

Then the shadow continues to climb higher on the East mountains, to points higher than any of the West mountains.

That means the sunlight is shining upward.

That would be impossible on a flat Earth.