It addresses a different question (Why is the Solar System Flat?) but it touches on the question of why things spin when they clump together from gravity.
An answer through the lens of my own understanding: it's just more difficult NOT to have angular momentum.
If you have a lot of particles falling toward each other due to gravity, imagine how difficult it would be to set it up such that all of them fall straight into their collective center of mass. They'd have to be in a precise, orderly configuration (e.g. equally spaced apart on a unit sphere). Note that each particle affects each other particle -- if any one particle gets too close to another, their gravitational interaction will cause them to move toward each other, and add an angular component to their motion with respect to the center of mass.
There are so much more disorderly configurations that will result in the particles moving with at least SOME angular momentum about their center of mass. Vector sum them all together, and it'd again be difficult for that sum -- the total angular momentum -- to be zero; they'd have to cancel each other out exactly, and there's just way more configurations where that isn't the case.
That's why it's simply much more likely for anything made out of particles in space to be spinning than not.
Additionally, as they fall toward the center of mass, the radius lowers, too, which means to conserve angular momentum you'll see their angular velocities increase. Helps make it more subjectively noticeable to us that everything is spinning.
A lot of features Vivaldi has are definitely "nice-to-have" level, especially stuff they seemingly put in for fun like Philips Hue integration.
But there are some very functional settings I use that I just miss in every other browser. Most notable for me are:
- extremely (at least relative to Chrome or Firefox) configurable keyboard shortcuts
- easily editable search engines (you have to enable this with an about:config parameter that isn't default -- not that it's turned off by default, but that it's a parameter you have to know about beforehand and add yourself to the list)
And it's Chromium, so you get Chromium extensions such as uBlock Origin, which is why I stuck with it over qutebrowser (which also has configurable keyboard shortcuts) even though it's closed source.
I loved Vivaldi. It has the spirit of Opera, where it's all about giving power users options instead of streamlining them away for UX (which is still an option you can have with Vivaldi!). I use Firefox now -- Manifest v3 was the last straw -- but I lament the loss of configurability in some areas.
I use both. I mainly still keep mutt for encryption and signing. For general, day-to-day use, I prefer aerc because I grok its configuration more -- I believe one of its key advantages is its simplicity of configuration. I find it much easier to think of a keybind or string of commands to make some menial task faster.
aerc still crashes on me from time to time. Not too much that I'm turned off from it, but definitely enough that I feel it's less stable than mutt.
I also find it easier to work with attachments in general with mutt: picking which attachment to view and piping it into different programs.
I actually address that directly in the blog post. I do use Markdown and Pandoc. But going extremely lean on the HTML, editing the documents directly is pretty refreshing. I'd go so far as to say it's a joy to do.
`const` doesn't mean immutable data. It means immutable variables, i.e. you can't reassign to `const` variables. You can mutate the data regardless (push to an array, add a new key to an object), unless the variable points to an immutable value to begin with (primitives, or actual immutable data structures such as with Immutable.js).
It addresses a different question (Why is the Solar System Flat?) but it touches on the question of why things spin when they clump together from gravity.
An answer through the lens of my own understanding: it's just more difficult NOT to have angular momentum.
If you have a lot of particles falling toward each other due to gravity, imagine how difficult it would be to set it up such that all of them fall straight into their collective center of mass. They'd have to be in a precise, orderly configuration (e.g. equally spaced apart on a unit sphere). Note that each particle affects each other particle -- if any one particle gets too close to another, their gravitational interaction will cause them to move toward each other, and add an angular component to their motion with respect to the center of mass.
There are so much more disorderly configurations that will result in the particles moving with at least SOME angular momentum about their center of mass. Vector sum them all together, and it'd again be difficult for that sum -- the total angular momentum -- to be zero; they'd have to cancel each other out exactly, and there's just way more configurations where that isn't the case.
That's why it's simply much more likely for anything made out of particles in space to be spinning than not.
Additionally, as they fall toward the center of mass, the radius lowers, too, which means to conserve angular momentum you'll see their angular velocities increase. Helps make it more subjectively noticeable to us that everything is spinning.