literallymechanical

The speed of light is actually really slow, and this is a pain in the neck.

All you aerospace engineers and economists understand my pain, but I'm not talking about signal delays from Earth to the asteroid belt, or between Chicago and the New York stock exchange. There are local problems too!

I was once working on a project that involved a big honkin’ high voltage power supply.  It was powering a bunch of klystrons, devices that produce high-energy radio pulses.  In the event that something went wrong in the experiment, the power supply needed to shut down within 20 microseconds. Any longer than 20 and our very expensive klystrons would break, to the tune of a quarter million bucks a pop.

I'm simplifying things a lot, but here’s the basic timeline involved:

  1. Something goes wrong in the experiment (the experiment was a fusion reactor btw, but that’s not relevant here).  The clock starts ticking down from 20 microseconds.
  2. The fault detection circuits take 8 microseconds to realize something has gone wrong. 12 microseconds left.
  3. The power supply does its emergency shutdown procedure, which takes ten microseconds. 2 microseconds left.
  4. Everything is shut down and safe. We breath a sigh of relief, and replace about $1K worth of parts.

There was just one problem:  When I say “big honkin’ power supply,” I mean big. It was the size of two shipping containers stacked atop each other. The only place with enough room for it was about 1000 yards away.

image

Hm. 3 micro light-seconds.

So now we have to add an extra step to our timeline:

  1. Something goes wrong. The clock starts ticking down at 20 microseconds.
  2. The fault detection circuits trip. 12 microseconds left.
  3. The fault signal travels via fiber optic to the power supply, 3 micro light-seconds away.  9 microseconds left.
  4. The power supply takes 10 microseconds to shut down
  5. Everything is finished… 1 microsecond too late.  We rend our clothing and spend a million dollars replacing fried klystrons.

The solution? Spend a metric buttload of cash on fancier fault detection circuits that will trip much much faster.

But we could have saved a LOT of money if the speed of light were just a tiny bit faster instead.

#huh#physics
langernameohnebedeutung

Going to add a maybe controversial thing but:

Women who are attracted to men but also don't like penetrative sex - and I'm definitely + explicitly + it's very much the point including vaginal penetrative sex here - are also perfectly within their rights to have that boundary and to have it respected.

Straight or bisexual women, cis or trans women, doesn't matter - I feel like womanhood is often equated with enjoying penetration. But it's not. Your identity doesn't dictate what you like sexually. And what you like sexually doesn't dictate your identity.

And I think especially for women who are attracted to men, enjoying penetrative sex is considered such a must that many of us don't even question it - to the point that a) not wanting it is considered a medical issue by itself and b) with many medical complications or conditions or even psychological reasons that someone might find vaginal penetration painful, the first concern is often not even to fix the underlying issue or even to make that kind of sex pleasurable - but to make her "functional" for her partner again. (Prized example: The husband-stitch. Generally, I hear so often from women whose partners got impatient with their recovery after they gave birth and who felt pressured to have vaginal sex before they felt like it.)

So I just want to say:

Womanhood does not equal enjoying penetration.

Being AFAB doesn't equal enjoying penetration.

Being attracted to men doesn't equal enjoying penetration.

What you enjoy sexually is not a matter of your identity. It's only a matter of what you enjoy and what you and your partner(s) genuinely want to do.

And actually, yes, this specifically goes out to heterosexual cis women in particular: Even if you never ever ever want to have vaginal penetrative sex - that's perfectly fine. You are perfectly within your rights to have that boundary. And no man has any right to force you. And calling you "uptight" or "vanilla" or "weird" or "but you own a dildo" or "It'll be good with me, I swear!" - that's a way of forcing you. He has two options a) accept your boundary and find a different way to have sex b) accept your boundary and go home.

If there is an underlying medical issue like cysts or if you have vaginismus that diminishes your quality of life - of course I recommend seeing a doctor. And if you have experienced trauma, I recommend therapy. All of which should be focussed on helping you with the things that you deem important - and not what your partner or a potential partner deems important.

But if you simply just don't want to have penetrative sex - then don't. Nothing is wrong with you. No one has any right to force you.

We often say "don't do anal if you don't want to", "don't do oral if you don't want to" - and those are very, very true! But I feel like we don't say "don't do vaginal if you don't want to" or "don't have penetrative sex at all if you don't want to" often enough to women - because it's such an expectation that everyone would enjoy it.

And also, you don't owe anyone an explanation. Sometimes, trauma is a reason - but if you have experienced trauma, you're not obligated to tell your partner the details of it to justify not wanting to have that kind of sex. "No" is a full sentence. Sometimes the fear of pregnancy or contraception failing is a reason - and that's also to be respected.

And if you don't have any reason related to trauma or a medical condition - you're still perfectly within your rights to have that boundary respected. Sex is supposed to feel good for both partners involved. And any partner who doesn't care about your boundaries or pressures you - is for the streets. Gotta go. Is an ex. Shoo. Out. Over.

#sex education#misc#gender#feminism