Fixed that for you.

With pleasure. A deflagration is a type of explosion.

An excellent video by Scott Manley. Funny how it does not discuss explosion v deflagration, but it does discuss detonation vs deflagration. Let's park that thought..

Well, "most often" does not mean "always". But hey, common mistake. But here's the important thing: you are now getting the words "explosion" and "detonation" extremely muddled. And the reason probably relates to another term which we haven't yet covered: "high explosives".

Let's expand on that. If you want to buy an explosive, you probably want a "high explosive". These explosives are everyone's favorite: they are particularly destructive, they do indeed detonate supersonically, and by "everyone" I mean miners, demolishers, the Army and MythBusters. But those are not the only kinds of explosives. There are two other types: "low explosives", that deflagrate subsonically; and, things that explode for some other reason. This very last type is absolutely not marketed as an explosive, because it is much too accidental and boring, such as a COPV tank in the Starship upper stage that contains no combustible fuel, but instead contains something like oxygen or nitrogen. (And "boring" might be the wrong word, depending on the circumstances, e.g. if there is a tank of methane nearby.)

Which brings us back to GGGP which said: Something in the upper section ... exploded without igniting.

So, getting back to pedantry. If we were to be pedantic, we would not quote you. Instead, we might expand on the GGGP post and say: "Something in the upper section exploded without igniting, combusting, deflagrating or detonating. And that thing did not deflagrate, detonate, combust or ignite." It exploded (meaning that stuff went everywhere) without igniting (or any of the other things.)

It sure is a tough job being a pedant. You have a nice day.

If you were being pedantic you would at least be correct, and you are SO wrong on SO many levels. Where to start?

1. 1: GP was talking about an event in the upper section, where material was propelled outwards. This is the definition of explosion.
2. 2: You are talking about a distinction between deflagration, or subsonic combustion, vs. something else. The thing you are grasping for is of course supersonic combustion, a.k.a. detonation.
3. 3: Getting back to the event in the upper section, material was propelled outwards due to failure of a pressure vessel. No deflagration, no detonation, nor any form of combustion. Just overpressure, plain and simple.

So, if we're being pedantic: Something in the upper section exploded without igniting, exactly as the GP said. It did NOT deflagrate.

Moving on: If you were thinking about the destruction of the methane tank, which occurred a fraction of a second later, it did indeed combust subsonically, so it did deflagrate. Which IS a type of explosion. So if we're being pedantic, the methane tank deflagrated AND exploded.

It looks a bit like a stradivirus.

Also because apparently he can't possibly extradite anyone anymore, it's impossible, just ask Abrego Garcia.

Must say, it was brave of Lucas to record the audience reaction at the test screenings.

Commentator saying "now starting the pitch-over maneuver" was astoundingly prescient.

Yeah. Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and The Last Jedi.

Not far off, although his actual pronouns are sh/t

Not that I could afford it. But compared to a Starliner or SLS test? It's a bargain.

It seems that altermagnetism is the third form after ferromagnetism, ferrimagnetism, antiferromagnetism, paramagnetism and diamagnetism.

Its semantics and morphology are just about perfect. It is highly [grits teeth] performant.

Apparently we can only pump organic chemicals into the atmosphere. Like the safe, natural goodness of coal ash.

Hmm. All of a sudden I agree with the car makers

Who says the US can't adapt to the metric system? Look! They just started using megamiles.