Layman's guess: wings push air down, air pushes wings up.
An everyday experiment is sticking your flat hand out the window of a moving car. With slight wrist rotations, you'll find even slight deviations from neutral (parallel to the ground) cause your "wing" to rise or fall, with a force that seems proportional to the angle.
We can hypothesize that a symmetric wing, with zero angle of attack, should experience no lift:
There is a pressure difference with an asymmetric airfoil, and that results in air being directed downward with a resulting upward reaction force. F=ma still holds, the lift force is equal to the mass × acceleration of the air downwards, likewise momentum is conserved as the momentum of the plane up equals that of the air going down.
All of the lift can be explained by Newton's laws, but explaining why the air moves down in the first place can't be explained by Newton's laws.
Not to pick on Rails, sorting files into "models / views / controllers" seems to be our first instinct. My pantry is organized that way: baking stuff goes here, oils go there, etc.
A directory hierarchy feels more pleasant when it maps to features, instead. Less clutter.
Most programmers do not care about OO design, but "connascence" has some persuasive arguments.
> Knowing the various kinds of connascence gives us a metric for determining the characteristics and severity of the coupling in our systems. The idea is simple: The more remote the connection between two clusters of code, the weaker the connascence between them should be.
> Good design principles encourages us to move from tight coupling to looser coupling where possible. But connascence allows us to be much more specific about what kinds of problems we’re dealing with, which makes it easier to reason about the types of refactorings that can be used to weaken the connascence between components.
> To say that the government is too big and complex and it should be smaller and simpler feels like a drastic oversimplification and incredibly simple thing to say.
I can stipulate there must be essential complexity. I think we have to dispute any suggestion that this hypothetically-essential complexity has grown at the same rate as the spending[1].
It's not obvious that fairness, charity, national defense, public health, postage stamps, corn ethanol... [or air traffic control (cough), clean water (cough), non-derailing trains (cough), levees (cough)]..., ad infinitum should require a static percentage of the economy. Essential or not, those costs fundamentally cannot continue to outpace real GDP growth.
Rather, it seems obvious to me that the political class has scope-creeped "governance" into spending as an end in itself.
Practically, and morally, the government is too big and complex, and it should be drastically smaller and simpler.
> in my experience drug addicts are not very good at hiding it when they lose control
Not sure if it's relevant, but psychedelics (mushrooms) broke a college friend after minimal recreational use. Like, maybe twice, with zero past history of any other controlled substance.
His delusions were similar to what you described. In hindsight, I wasn't qualified to handle his deeply troubled mind.
You did the right thing contacting family and seeking professional help.
> As the Apollo program began to wind down in the late 1960s, there were numerous proposals for what should follow it. Of the many proposals, large and small, three major themes emerged. Foremost among them was a crewed mission to Mars, using systems not unlike the ones used for Apollo. A permanent space station was also a major goal, both to help construct the large spacecraft needed for a Mars mission as well as to learn about long-term operations in space. Finally, a space logistics vehicle was intended to cheaply launch crews and cargo to that station.
> The Shuttle was originally conceived of and presented to the public in 1972 as a 'Space Truck' which would, among other things, be used to build a United States space station in low Earth orbit during the 1980s and then be replaced by a new vehicle by the early 1990s.
Well, you could say that those plans were ultimately accomplished, although much later and in a different form: the shuttle was used to build a space station (the ISS - not in the 80s, but in the 2000s) and was eventually replaced by a new vehicle (again much later, in the 2020s, with an embarrassing gap in between, and the new vehicle looks much like the shuttle's predecessors - but still...)
Naturally, that calls into question the incredibly low interest rates, and the reserve currency status.
If you need to blame Trump, the last straw was COVID.
> At incredibly low interest rates, most investments are positive ROI.
Step 1: Hold short term rates at zero, forever Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit Step 4: Wow, that's a lot of debt
[1] https://www.cfr.org/blog/first-time-us-spending-more-debt-in...