3 ms·

Not really. You just need good data or approximations of the data. Then just compute.

• macksd 2y ago
  Yeah, let's just measure the density and composition of a comet that will be here in a few months, and with expectations that it may be releasing new gaseous formations as it gets closer, predict what will happen with those formations. Let me just code that up real fast.
  • deadbabe 2y ago
    You can literally measure anything, that’s not the same as being 100% precise. That’s how it works.
    • ethbr1 2y ago
      The difference is compounding, unstable systems. In much simpler form, it's similar to the "Where will this satellite in a decaying orbit land?" The difficulty is not the approximation: the difficulty is that whether drag begins to increase at t=x or t=x+30sec (based on orientation when it first encounters atmosphere) cascades throughout the rest of the equations and dramatically changes the results.
      • deadbabe 2y ago
        Monte Carlo it
        • ethbr1 2y ago
          That doesn't help if the convergence is a bi+ modal distribution, due to the underlying nature of the problem.
        • macksd 2y ago
          Are you a product manager by any chance? Because I can totally imagine you telling someone to just use some cloud DB because it's infinitely scalable.
    • mbwgh 2y ago
      Elon is it you?
• yencabulator 2y ago
  The "unknown" part implies lack of data. We literally don't know what gases, and how much of them, will evaporate off of it until they do evaporate. And that doesn't happen until it warms up more.
  • deadbabe 2y ago
    We can estimate.
    • yencabulator 2y ago
      The current data gives estimates between "brighter than stars" and "not visible without instruments".