We didn't figure it out, we made it up.

Brackets being first makes sense because all that brackets do is change the order. If they weren't first they'd be useless.

The others are fairly arbitrary but do make some sort of sense. Exponents are repeated multiplication, multiplication is repeated addition. So it does make sense to go from the "most powerful" operation to the least powerful.

But if we wanted to we could have an order of operations that does addition first and exponents last. We'd just have to rewrite all our equations if we wanted to get the same result.

>When it's not sure you get to identify something they need to train
their AI or mark on google maps, like vehicles traffic control devices,
fire hydrants, hills etc.

Which is why those tend to show up more when you're in Incognito mode or using a VPN.

That is what our power sources already do.

That's what a wind turbine is

Wave-particle duality doesn't mean that light is sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle, it means it's a third thing that has some things in common with both waves and particles

When we're measuring light passing through diffraction grating, it's most useful to treat it like a wave. When we're discussing the photoelectric effect it's best to treat it like a particle.

A good analogy I read in a reddit comment that I can no longer find: wave-particle duality as a concept is like if you saw a train and described it as exhibiting "horse-house duality", because it's sometimes like a horse in that it moves around and takes you to places, and sometimes like a house in that you can sit inside and it protects you from the elements. But you know it isn't a horse or a house, it's a third thing. If you're solving a question about how long it takes to travel somewhere you might model the train as being like a horse. If you're solving a question about how much stuff can fit inside of it, you might model it like a house. But you know neither of those are actually the truth.

All particles have wave-like properties. But for particles of fairly high mass, those wave-like properties are so small that it's easier to ignore them.

Queer means "generally LGBTQ in some nonspecific way"

It very intentionally does not mean anything specific. Could be because they're not sure themselves of anything other than not being hetero or cis, could mean they just don't want to tell you anything specific.

Either way, it doesn't refer to one specific kind of person because it isn't supposed to.

Stellar winds are jets of charged particles from the star. They're the same as Solar winds, it's just that "stellar" is the generic term whereas solar is only the sun.

They're not winds as in the movement of air. We call them that because they move in ways analogous to wind.

This is true but nothing to do with stellar winds.

It's not like people don't take part in potential lethal sports now either. Plenty still do

They inevitably have to cut some things because if you included everything then even a moderately sized book would be like 4 hours long.

Also, movie and TV adaptations have to deal with practical limits. The author is only limited by what they can describe, the adaptation is limited by what the special effects team can pull off. Game of Thrones removed or merged a lot of characters because they didn't have an infinite casting budget and the books have about a billion named characters.

The Sandman TV adaptation removes only a few things from the comic, and once you list them you can see the pattern. John Constantine becomes Johanna Constantine. There's no mention of the Justice League. The Martian Manhunter doesn't show up. Scarecrow isn't there. I realised pretty early on that evidently they didn't have the rights for the DC Universe beyond Sandman himself so all of that got cut.

And sometimes it's just creative differences.

The creators of the film are not obligated to be 100% faithful to the books. It is not inherently bad to do things different. It's an adaptation, not a recreation. Personally, when a favourite book of mine is adapted, I often want it to be at least a bit different, because I already know the story of the book and don't particularly want to see exactly the same story I already know. My favourite parts of the TV version of Good Omens were the parts that weren't in the book, because they were new and exciting.

IIRC Jaws has a whole weird subplot about the Mafia, and also something about the protagonist's wife having an affair, which were cut from the movie because they didn't really add anything anyway

I actually quite like that the original Van Helsing is nothing like a traditional badass hero. He's a weird goofy professor, but he's also an experienced vampire hunter.

Andy Weir was always very popular on this sub, don't think there's anything suspicious here