I have to use Wayland, you insensitive clod!

I give a coding interview to determine, "Can this candidate get the computer to do what they want?" Coding problems are a quick way of determining that. Of course, I could give them a month long task and see if they can complete that, but no one will tolerate that.

If a person can't manage to give reasonable, logical instructions to a computer, the LLM isn't going to help.

"Clearing the neighborhood" ought to include also the possibility of two planets in the same orbit on opposite sides of the sun. In any case I was hoping to start good conversation and I think I succeeded.

There are multiple proposed definitions for "clear the neighborhood.'

And it turns out that your logic is better than the IAU, also.

That's what happens when you get a dwarf boat.

That is interesting. It seems to imply that organic matter from Earth would also land on our moon, just with a much smaller probability.

Thank god for that. It was hard enough to learn 9 (now 8) planets at school. Can you imagine having to learn all the names if the hydrostatic equilibrium definition held?

Since when does science work by a standard of "what is easy for children to memorize lists of"? Do we say "There are 8 rivers in the world, and all others are dwarf rivers, which really aren't rivers" to make it easier on kids? Do we say "There are 8 bones in the human body, and all others are dwarf bones, which don't really count as bones"?

That's not how science works. Science is focused on practical distinctions about how things developed and their physical properties relative to each other. Hydrostatic equilibrium is a very practical definition. The process of undergoing relaxation induces metamorphism and releases heat, altering bodies. You go to non-equilibrium bodies if you want to study the primordial makeup of our solar system. You go to equilibrium bodies if you want to study tectonics, volcanism, non-primordial chemistry, and search for past or present life. The boundary could not be more meaningful. Yes, there is a bit of fuzz between equilibrium and non-equilibrium, but the same applies to pretty much all scientific fields.

You mean Trump?

Usually he wears pants.

Supporters of the IAU definition (which I should add was a deeply biased sample, in that it looked like they were headed toward no definition or a hydrostatic equilibrium definition, so most supporters of that left, but the people trying to switch it to an orbit-clearing definition stayed) will argue that it's cleared if the remaining objects are trivial transients or in orbital resonance. But that's not what the IAU definition says. Also they'll point to the Stern-Levison parameter, but (A) that was based on the ability to scatter today's distribution of asteroids, not the primordial distribution, which included outright planetissimals**; and (B) Mars didn't even clear it's own orbit, Jupiter did. Also, in the paper that introduced the Stern-Levison parameter, they argued for a better definition where you combine adjectives and nouns (each with specific implications about the body) as needed to describe its size, composition, etc.

But the OP's point stands, in that it's stupid to say that something is a "dwarf planet", yet not a planet. It's like saying dwarf stars aren't stars or dwarf galaxies aren't galaxies or whatnot. An adjective-noun is almost always a noun, that's how language works. In the cases where an adjective-noun isn't a noun - say, "shooting star" or "slow worm" or whatnot - we treat these as scientifically erroneous colloquialisms, and formalize corrected scientific terminology. We don't do literally the opposite and have science codify misleading language.

Speak for yourself, Pluto is fascinating. Tectonically active. Cryovolcanism so abundant it appears to have formed large mountains by the merger of individual domes. A gigantic scar exposing its mantle, which over time roils in massive convection cells, pockmarked in sublimation pits. Mountains drifting like icebergs and accumulating on the shore. Penetentes (sublimation ice spikes), the size of large hills. A multilayer blue atmosphere, in which organic chemistry occurs, depositing not just organic matter onto its own surface, but that of its moon as well. Active glaciation. A probable subsurface ocean, in contact with rock. Conditions suggesting it was habitable when it formed.

IMHO, it's way more interesting than a number of recognized planets.

(Also, I'm confused by your response. This isn't about the moon, and the moon has no atmosphere for flying)

False. Asshole.

You are wrong, but even if you are right, my logic is still better than the IAU, since not even Earth, Jupiter, or Neptune have completely cleared their orbit.

A) You are an asshole.

B) Absolutely false.

C) You tried to deflect from my main point by attacking a strawman, which makes it seem like you don't even understand 4th grade logic. Next time address the main point: UEFI was not designed with security as a priority, which invites security bugs in the implementation. They are almost impossible to avoid.

UEFI is not secure, and you are trying to play logic games to avoid that fact. The systems you design are probably all insecure, because demonstrably you can't use logic.

A dwarf planet is a subclass of planet.

Yep. Back in the early days of Slashdot, when helium usage would come up, I'd grumble about how wasteful the medical industry was with helium.

It still uses a lot, but it's nowhere near as wasteful as it was before.