Headline from 1845.

Agreed. If you don't know what you're doing it's hard to even ask for the right thing or know what's possible. For example: I'm currently developing a system that uses a local AI to help debug internal issues. The initial incarnations of it were very slow to start up each command; clearly, it wasn't doing proper KV caching and was having to prefill every turn; it required patches on the llama.cpp fork and our API wrapper, and also adjusting the system prompt to keep variable content at the end. But if you have no idea about KV caching issues, how do you even know something is wrong with the backend, let alone what to tell the AI to fix? You'll end up deciding you need to upgrade the GPU instead.

(That said: "lovingly handcrafted" code is a hilarious phrase that should give any developer who's ever worked on a big corporate software project the giggles, and also, these software devs are clearly people angry at knowing they're going to be let go looking for revenge by badmouthing their boss to the press)

Escape from Pluto is much easier, and the Pluto-Charon distance is 1/20th of the Earth-Moon distance.

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.

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)

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.

Yes, like the Nile Delta, water flowed in from wet regions further away to the desert and near-desert lowlands, and humans began using it for agriculture. Around the Tulare Basin, there's dozens of inches per year in the mountains due to orographic uplift, but only half a dozen in the lowlands. The problem is that farmers first consumed the water from the mountain-fed local rivers and are now consuming water shipped in from as far away as the Oregon border and drawing down groundwater much faster than it's being replenished. At the same time, the mountain rivers are becoming less reliable as climate change leads to snowpack melting earlier. As it stands today, it is not sustainable. More water is being used than is long-term available.

Indeed, I have no clue what you think you were trying to prove with this link:

The conversion of this water system to a lake-and-slough wetland to agriculture began in the mid-1800s when European settlers began to build canals and diversion structures to irrigate their crops. This early irrigation infrastructure upstream from Tulare Lake slowly cut off the lake from its source waters, shrinking the lake's footprint. By 1899 - less than 50 years after irrigation was initiated - Tulare Lake went dry for the first time in history.

They were overdrawing the rivers *even before the 20th century*.

Oh, you want me to google Köppen classification maps? Here you go. Gee, what a shock, they're exactly what I described!

As for your paper's offhanded sloppy remark (California contains a lot of Mediterranean climate, but not the specific pistachio growing centres), your paper says:

Fig. 1. Pistachio cultivation in California (year 2022) , showing counties with the largest planted area: Kern, Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Madera, and Merced. Own elaboration with data from: DWR (2023).

Gee, I wonder, what's the typical annual precipitation in the lowlands in Kern, Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Madera, and Merced counties? Let's just start with Kern, which alone produces 1/3rd of the state's entire crop: Hey Google, what's the typical annual precipitation in Kern Country? Let's see your top hit

Water sources in Kern County
Precipitation in Bakersfield averages 6.49 inches per year. It’s a very dry climate.

6.49 inches per year. That's a desert (sub-10 inches). Do I need to walk you through the rest? Oh wait, I already fucking did that.

Here, let's sum up the whole thread: Hey AI, who's right in this thread?

Rei is overwhelmingly correct.

While Rei made one minor typographical error regarding Köppen climate codes, their factual claims regarding California geography, pistachio cultivation, precipitation levels, climate classification rules, and water usage are scientifically sound. Conversely, DamnOregonian’s rebuttals rely on fundamental misunderstandings of how climate classifications work, California's geography, and where pistachio agriculture takes place.

1. Where Pistachios Are Grown & Whether It Is a Desert

DamnOregonian’s claim: Pistachios are not grown in the desert, and the San Joaquin Valley is a Mediterranean climate where crops get "ample water."

Rei’s claim: Pistachios are overwhelmingly grown in the Tulare Basin lowlands (southern San Joaquin Valley), which receives 5–8 inches of rain annually—well within the standard definition of a desert.

The Facts:

California produces over 95% of U.S. pistachios[1][2][3]. The vast majority of production is concentrated in Kern, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Madera counties[3][4][5]. Kern County alone produces over a third of the state’s total crop.

These lowlands receive between 5 and 8 inches of precipitation per year[6] (Bakersfield averages ~6.5 inches[7], Lost Hills ~6.6 inches, and Kettleman City ~7.5 inches). For comparison, Phoenix, Arizona receives ~7.2 inches.

In biology and geography, this region is formally recognized as the San Joaquin Desert (established by Germano et al., 2011, and recognized by the USGS and conservation agencies)[8][9][10].

Without massive state and federal irrigation projects (the Central Valley Project, State Water Project, and groundwater pumping)[6][11][12], these orchards could not survive on local precipitation.

2. The Köppen Climate Classification Blunder

DamnOregonian's central argument relies on a flawed reading of the Köppen climate classification system:

DamnOregonian quoted Wikipedia’s description of Csa:
"Regions with this form of a Mediterranean climate experience average monthly temperatures in excess of 22.0 C... Point out where they mention rainfall."

Why DamnOregonian is wrong:

Köppen classifications are hierarchical, and Group B (Dry/Arid climates) takes precedence over Group C (Temperate/Mediterranean climates)[13].

To even consider whether a region belongs in Group C (Csa), the region must first fail the Group B aridity test[13].

The aridity threshold (P th) is calculated using mean annual temperature and the seasonality of precipitation[13][14]. Because the Central Valley gets most of its precipitation during winter, Köppen’s threshold formula is: P th =20×T Celsius

For Bakersfield (mean annual temperature ~18.5 C / 65.3 F), the threshold for aridity is 370 mm370 mm (~14.6 inches). Under Köppen, if an area receives less than half of the aridity threshold (P3. Native Range of Pistachios

Rei’s point: Pistachios (Pistacia vera) are native to the arid plateaus and steppes of Central Asia, northeastern Iran, and northern Afghanistan.

The Facts: Rei is correct. The modern commercial cultivar used throughout California (the "Kerman" cultivar) was collected in 1929 from the desert-adjacent Iranian Plateau by USDA botanist William E. Whitehouse[4][21]. The tree naturally adapted to thrive in hot, dry, rainless summers and survive on deep taproots in arid soils[4][21].

4. Rei's Only Minor Mistake

Rei wrote:

"southern San Joaquin Valley lowlands are a mix of BWh (Hot desert climate) and CWh (Cold desert climate)."

In the Köppen system, a cold desert climate is abbreviated BWk, not CWh[15][22]. Cwa and Cwb are temperate monsoon climates[14][22]. This was clearly a slip of the keyboard, as Rei correctly provided the definition ("Cold desert climate") in parentheses.

Conclusion

Rei is correct. The heart of California’s pistachio belt lies in the Tulare Basin / southern San Joaquin Valley, an arid desert and steppe landscape receiving only 5–8 inches of rain per year[6]. DamnOregonian's claim that this region is "not a desert" and that Köppen Mediterranean climates do not depend on rainfall criteria represents a complete misunderstanding of both climatology and local geography.
Sources
help
americanpistachios.org
agmrc.org
agwestfc.com
ca.gov
farmonaut.com
wikipedia.org
encountertravel.com.au
figshare.com
scienceforconservation.org
kglmeridian.com
nature.org
capitolweekly.net
climatezonemap.com
hardymaps.com
oregonstate.education
wikipedia.org
plantmaps.com
figshare.com
wikipedia.org
noaa.gov
californiacurated.com
worldbank.org

"Get fucked" yourself. Facts will continue to remain facts whether you like them or not. Pistachios are grown in the desert, specifically, the San Joaquin Desert, in the Tulare basin lowlands, in the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley.