Comments by "Nicolae Crefelean" (@kneekoo) on "Tech Chasm" channel.

  1. 50
  2. 24
  3. 13
  4. 12
  5. 11
  6. 10
  7. 8
  8. 8
  9. 7
  10. 6
  11. 6
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 5
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. So what was wrong with "Eskimo Nebula" and "Siamese Twins"? I looked into it. Here's what NASA [1] says: «“Eskimo” is widely viewed as a colonial term with a racist history, imposed on the indigenous people of Arctic regions.» Here's what Canada [2] says: «"Eskimo" is the term once given to Inuit by European explorers and is now rarely used in Canada. It is derived from an Algonquin term meaning "raw meat eaters," and many people find the term offensive.» Ok, that makes sense. It's not a racist word, though. But being non-sense and tied to nasty wrongdoings, I see why they stopped using it. As for the "Siamese Twins", NASA didn't say anything but Wikipedia [3] says this: «Chang and Eng Bunker (1811–1874), Thai brothers born in Siam, now Thailand, traveled widely for many years and were labeled as The Siamese Twins. Chang and Eng were joined at the torso by a band of flesh, cartilage, and their fused livers. In modern times, they could have been easily separated. Due to the brothers' fame and the rarity of the condition, the term "Siamese twins" came to be used as a synonym for conjoined twins.» There you go, I learned something new. I never knew where that word came from. Now I see why it makes no sense to use it for conjoined twins. But for a pair of galaxies, why not? That would be an honor for the actual Siamese twins. What am I missing? [1] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-to-reexamine-nicknames-for-cosmic-objects [2] http://www.publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/R2-236-2002E.pdf [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoined_twins
    2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1