As always, there is a relevant xkcd for this: https://xkcd.com/2608/

I don't know your exact experiences, but I had a similar feeling in the past. However, recently I noticed it was a lot of how i behaved to them. I started speaking more openly with my male friends and noticed, they also value my emotions. The main difference was, that my friendships with women started on an emotional level making it a lot easier to open up for me. With my male friends, I needed to just say how i feel, which i have not dared for a long time. My own stereotypes probably played a larger role than the gender of the people involved.

However as others have said, if they do not take you seriously when you open up, they are bad friends. (Edit: Bad friends is a bit harsh, more like friends for having fun together, not to rely on. This is also nice even if it can be hard to accept)

I don't read it that way. For me they argue that you should take a different view on wretched people and not blame their personality on their gender.

Thsi reminds me of this site where you can overlay the borders of any country anywhere on earth and see how it compares. https://www.thetruesize.com/

relevant xkcd

::: spoiler Title text Gotta feel kind of bad for nation-state hackers who spend years implanting and cultivating some hardware exploit, only to discover the entire target database is already exposed to anyone with a web browser. :::

A construction like this could never work with moonlight, not even theoretically. There is a nice xkcd about it: https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/

I think your post is exactly what is criticized by OP. In the first part of the post it is explicitly stated men should not talk over the fear of women. A message like yours seems to blame people just because they criticize the way of discussion in some places. I think it is obvious that men are influenced in a possible negative way, when they are always seen as danger. At least for me it probably contributed to my low self esteem, especially in all sex/gender related topics. I think, we as men do so much harm, I don't want to take part in this. But i took it to the extreme, so I was ashamed of everything sexual about me. But as OP said, all of this doesn't invalidate the feeling of any woman. But for example this situation here is not governed by fear, still it seems you can't discuss the social effects of this sentiment "against" man, without discrediting the other side. Sure, violence done mainly to women is the most important topic. But if men always get portrayed as danger, I can understand some are open to other, more misogynist worldviews.

If you are interested in (astro)physics, here are two channels which i enjoy and can assure for their correctness on research topics:

Dr. Becky Astrophysicist talking about what's happening in space from planets currently visible by nakedness eye to new impactfull research papers. She explains everything in an approachable way.

Angela Collier Theoretical physicist, makes long story telling videos about physics and societal topics surrounding research. Most videos are >50 minutes, some are more than three hours. However, they often stray from the original topic.

For some talk about philosophy, I can recommend Philosophy Tube. Most videos are somewhat short of an hour, but explain some philosophical topic in an approachable and interesting manner. Just don't be detered by her extraordinary costumes for each session. I think she research the philosophical questions quite well.

The more self-sufficient you can be, the fewer societal resources you will take up, which could then go to someone else in greater need. That's my perspective at least.

But the more self-sufficient you are, the more resources of yourself you need to supply yourself. So you can provide less societal resources. If you do not need to provide clothes for yourself, you have more time caring for elderly, etc.

As another view, the total resources need does not directly change by changing who does what. The advantages of helping each other are in the OP. At some point however, I would think, the overhead of organization grows so large that it may not be worth it anymore. Just think of the amount of work put into "useless" administration in many countries. But in a 30 person village, this is probably negligible.

Edit: Thanks for helping other people on the feet!

It needs thrusters, because there are still some small forces acting on the probe. For example, asymmetrical emission thermal radiation may rotate the probe slowly. This accelerated the Pioneer probes somewhat, see Pioneer anomaly. So without correction you can't keep the orientation for years. Every tiny force would accumulate over this timescale.

The AI needs help to cut the loop, perhaps it needs a new set of knives?

If you haven't read it already, try the new book "Project Hail Mary" also by Andy Weir. I found it even more enthralling.

The thing is, now we have one 1-2 3.7 meter sized antenna on the voyager probes and a 100 meter sized antenna on earth with high transmission power. Signal decays with distance squared. To get the same signal power to the voyager probe assuming an relay in the middle, it would need an 25 meter antenna with the large transmitter/receiver currently on earth on space.

In short it's easier to build a 4 times better transmission system on earth than in an relay in space.

One point where relays are used are mars rovers. There the orbiter has an large antenna and is close to the rover, so you don't need to land the large antenna at the surface.

Edit: fixed antenna diameter

As many others have already said, you are definitely not weird for it. If thats what you enjoy, don't let others take it from you just because they might consider it weird.

For me personally, I do both. Sometimes I listen to background music while doing other things. As someone said above, its like elevator music. However, for me it improves the mood for some tasks.
On the other hand, I sit down maybe three times a week just for listening to music. I fully follow the emotions and story of a song or album.
The music is quite different between these two modes. For the background music I just need some good tunes. When listening fully, the song must have a text I like or be a really good instrumental song. Then I also need the right song and order of songs depending on mood. Mostly it's a curated list from which i select song by song. If I hear a great song in background listening I add it to the list. Later I listen to a more songs of the album or artist with full attention and add the ones I enjoy to my list. Funnily there are songs which then have so much meaning for me, I cannot listen to them in background anymore. Either I skip them or i put my full attention to them.

This hits me hard. I am a cis male and currently trying to get rid of something like toxic masculinity, but as you say it is deeply rooted.

I acually never strived for the stereotypical man image, I wanted to have an emotional side. Now i know i always just considered "having am emotional side" just as another kind of requirement to be a good man. So i tried listening to others and beeing open myself, talking about emotional things. But only those, that i thougt were accepted. I never talked about my real worries. They always seemed to ridiculous to me. A good emotially healthy man shouldn't have them or solve them himself. Now it feels pretty dumb in retrospect, but I am no longer letting this feeling stop me from talking about something. In some way I also have the feeling i betrayed other people with a fake personality.

I know this is not the mistake of feminism. I cannot really say what went wrong to land in this position. I do not even know why i tell this now. In some way, I just want to tell my story and hope someone can relate with it. Secondly i want to say, that the following is not obvious for everyone, at least it was not for me: Beeing emotional is not just some requirement for you, it's also about having an opportunity to get support for your worries.

Yes obviously. Actually, the people i was thinking about, were basically advocating for a fair society where every person can live ther own way. As women are currently structurally at disadvantage, this leads them to feminism.

While I agree in general, one point is a bit to simplified in my opinion

In other words, there are fewer air molecules per cubic foot (volume of air). The molecules are farther apart and can hold less heat energy. Because "heat" is what we say when we mean molecules are moving around.

Less molecules mean less heat, it has nothing to do with the temperature, if you just decrease the density by removing half the molecules, you have the same temperature.

It cools down because it expands adiabatically. Consider a very thin balloon filled with air which is warmer than the surrounding. This now rises up, but as it does, the pressure decreases, causing the balloon to expand. During this expansion, the balloon transfers energy away from itself, because it has to push away air, to make room for expanding in the surrounding. This work cools the air inside the balloon. Assuming the air inside is dry, it would cool around 10 °C per km it rises. Now if you think about it, the balloon just stopped the inside from mixing with the outside. If you look at a large "piece" of air, it does not mix very fast, so you can remove the balloon and just consider what happens with warm air heated from the ground.

Now this does not mean, it has to be cooler when higher up. The same points hold, inside a house, but there it is often warmer when higher.

The best explaination is when looking where the heat comes from and goes too from the air. The atmosphere is mostly heated from the surface of earth, so the bottom and cooled from the upper layers. So naturally it gets hotter where it is heated. The question is now by how much? There are three modes of heat transfer in the atmosphere: radiation, conduction and convection. The first two are very slow. Connection is fast but has limits. Consider the piece of air, if it rises, it cools. So at some place it may be the same temperature as the surrounding air, so it stops rising. This means the convection works only when the air gets cooler by 10 °C/km going up (~6.5°C when the air is moist and precipation happens). So this temperature gradient is observable very often.

Hopefully, otherwise it may end bad: https://what-if.xkcd.com/6/

I can totally understand your point. While trying to argue against it, i find myself agreeing even more to it.
Only one remark: As you say, the message is in any case not really appropriate for the preceding texts. However, i still think the statement can be interpreted in a constructive view and i try to give the benefit of doubt.

I have made quite different experiences, the people I felt safest to open were feminists.

Edit: I am sorry for your experience and didn't wanted to downplay it. However, as there are many answers in a similar direction as yours, i wanted to give an alternative experience.