The mansplaining thing in this context is more about an unfounded assumption of ignorance in the other party. Usually one would assume an astronaut to know basic thermodynamics, but the tweet’s phrasing implies the other other person doesn’t. It’s less “you’re wrong” and more “why do you think she doesn’t know that.”
A lot of them probably haven’t taken a thermodynamics lesson.
Sure, but in that case the replier could’ve phrased their response as such. As it stands they’re addressing the poster, not other people seeing the exchange.
Sure, but in that case the replier could’ve phrased their response as such.
But like if we’re being super duper real for a sec, who gives a shit? It’s such a waste of energy and won’t change anything to pick meaningless social media posts apart. He made a fair point, I choose not to interpret it beyond that.
I’m pretty sure he didn’t make a fair point. I haven’t taken any thermodynamics classes, but I think the word “spontaneous” means something more specific in this context and is technically accurate.
He’s trying to one up her by using the common definition.
So he’s wrong on multiple levels here, and there’s no reason to pick apart the meaningless social media post accusing him of mansplaining.
The term spontaneous in thermodynamics refers to processes that occur without changes to the system. That doesn’t really apply here. “Spontaneous” boiling otherwise makes sense in the context of superheated water that starts boiling at the slightest nudge. This might very well be what she meant. I’m not even trying to say he proved her wrong. I’m saying he added insightful information. His conversation skills could use some work but accusing him of anything beyond that is a reach in my opinion.
I mean, you choose not to interpret it beyond that because to you it’s something other people are talking about. To someone who experiences this regularly it can apparently get really annoying, hence the negative reactions.
If it were, it wouldn’t be a good joke, because this exactly conforms to the thermodynamic definition of spontaneity. Saying it is spontaneous is, quite exactly, simple thermo.
The mansplaining thing in this context is more about an unfounded assumption of ignorance in the other party. Usually one would assume an astronaut to know basic thermodynamics, but the tweet’s phrasing implies the other other person doesn’t. It’s less “you’re wrong” and more “why do you think she doesn’t know that.”
In this case, though, he’s literally wrong. “Spontaneous” has a precise scientific definition and the astronaut is using it correctly.
A lot more people than that astronaut are going to see the post reply, though. A lot of them probably haven’t taken a thermodynamics lesson.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to mansplain that to you just now. Just wanted future readers to consider another angle.
Sure, but in that case the replier could’ve phrased their response as such. As it stands they’re addressing the poster, not other people seeing the exchange.
But like if we’re being super duper real for a sec, who gives a shit? It’s such a waste of energy and won’t change anything to pick meaningless social media posts apart. He made a fair point, I choose not to interpret it beyond that.
I’m pretty sure he didn’t make a fair point. I haven’t taken any thermodynamics classes, but I think the word “spontaneous” means something more specific in this context and is technically accurate.
He’s trying to one up her by using the common definition.
So he’s wrong on multiple levels here, and there’s no reason to pick apart the meaningless social media post accusing him of mansplaining.
The term spontaneous in thermodynamics refers to processes that occur without changes to the system. That doesn’t really apply here. “Spontaneous” boiling otherwise makes sense in the context of superheated water that starts boiling at the slightest nudge. This might very well be what she meant. I’m not even trying to say he proved her wrong. I’m saying he added insightful information. His conversation skills could use some work but accusing him of anything beyond that is a reach in my opinion.
Pretty sure it’s a reaction without any external energy input, which this is, but again, I’m no astronaut.
I mean, you choose not to interpret it beyond that because to you it’s something other people are talking about. To someone who experiences this regularly it can apparently get really annoying, hence the negative reactions.
That’s the joke. Haha, stupid astronaut, you are supposed to know.
It’s obviously too early to make that joke with an astronautess.
If it were, it wouldn’t be a good joke, because this exactly conforms to the thermodynamic definition of spontaneity. Saying it is spontaneous is, quite exactly, simple thermo.