I'll probably check in again at 34 hours.

I don't know how I got this job, sure it doesn't pay the best in the field, and you need lots of specialized training, and with that training you can go to much more prestigious work, but it pays enough. I don't know why the previous person to do it left (the commute was too much for her, but I would've moved closer if I was her). She trained me very briefly because I knew most of the ins and outs already, she told me the boss had been in and out of remission with bone cancer, but the last flair up was taken care of years ago.

It's been 7 years since he was first diagnosed, and he's had 2 replacements, they won't do a third. He doesn't want to try the experimental treatments because he'd rather enjoy the time he has.

I've worked for him for 3 years and I feel so greedy wanting to scream at him to try every avenue available. He has 3 amazing kids, a wife and in-laws who live him, he loves coming into work, he just finished renovating his forever home. And I don't want a different boss. I need more time with my mentor, my friend, the best boss I've ever had.

I just learned this morning, and it's really raw, I need to get it off my chest, I don't want to steal time from his family, but I want to take from him as much as I can. He's a genius in the field, the person he's trying to get to replace him is remarkable younger guy, but he's my age, he doesn't have the life experience that I've found myself looking to my boss for.

Fuck cancer.

Thanks off my chest. Hug your loved ones. Tell your dog they're good, scratch your cat. Enjoy the moments of extra nice weather.

My understanding is the researcher took Gaia probe information and looked at "wide binary stars" (not sure what defines wide, but there must be a ton of them), within 650 light years of earth. They found the ones that accelerate the least (relative to each other? Rotationally?) are, and this is where I get confused, moving more efficiently around each other than their faster counterparts?

This discrepancy is postulated to be due observations of the stars acting in different physics models based how much they're accelerating relative to each other?

If this is correct (and the researcher is very transparent with their methods and using public data) would this up-end our models as much as I think it would? There's probably a lot of things interacting with other things at very low relative acceptable throughout the universe. Or is this just highlighting a truth we already knew, that there's a difference between the quantum and relative universes that we're now able to roughly put a scale to?

I've added to my questions since lemmy has been down, what in the world does this paragraph mean? "Also, unlike other studies Chae calibrated the occurrence rate of hidden nested inner binaries at a benchmark acceleration."

While doing some you tubing about this (thanks lemmy.world down time) I discovered Sabine hossenfelder, who I think is becoming one of my favorite science communicators I recommend anyone wondering about anything science to check her out https://youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelder

I'm entirely new to sync, I feel like this will be common knowledge, but I went to expand a comment thread, it said "1/2 comments added" and the "view more (2)" button disappeared, it loaded 1 comment, but I'd be interested to see what that other comment was.

Thanks Lemmy-syncers

More info, just updated the app and the first thread I was trying to read showed both comments, but the second thread gave the same response, I was leaning towards "it's not showing deleted by creator" except it loaded 2/2 for one of the previous 1/2 threads.

I started watching Dr who when the reboot was 3 seasons in, I think David Tennant was the greatest doctor. A few years later I finally got wife to give it a shot as I started a fresh rewatch in preparation for Matt Smith's second season, she was ok with Eccelston and Tennant but Matt Smith is far and away her favorite doctor. Does this pattern hold true for any other Dr fans?