Possibly. I didn't dive in deeper to see if they even know the shape of the orbit. From my understanding a capture is very unlikely to have a near circular orbit. But planetary discs definitely aren't captures, so something changed the stars in those.
Given there are known polar planetary discs, and this orbit seems stable, wouldn't that suggest that polar systems are formed because of some past interaction between the two stars that disrupted them from the original plane of formation?
My system isn't even that old (maybe 4 years) and the first few times I got that very annoying popup that I should try to upgrade it told me in vague terms that I couldn't. So be it, everything runs fine now. I have backups of everything, so if WIn10 doesn't continue to work as simply unsupported one day I'll look for ways to "fix" it like someone mentioned with a 3rd party, or go to Linux and adapt to it. Anyone who has ever had a drive failure knows that the solution is to use a recovery USB which will be a portable Linux, so it will be just another version of that.
That quiet smile at the end is great. It's good to have purpose, regardless of what it is. I still have all my old cards for whatever reason, all the way back to the TNT. It will never get used again, but I feel trashing it is disrespectful for all the joy it gave me when it could.
I wonder if Kepler or others would have found these planets had Barnard's Star been in the areas searched? I.e., very small planets in close orbits around a dim star is a very difficult target, period. This also means that the thousands of systems we now know about certainly have far more than the few bodies we've detected because we can only see the biggest ones well.
Which still wouldn't do what you suggest. The mass is the same, so it has the same effect from a distance. Unless by "eat earth" you meant it would take in dirt until it suck to the core, still about the same mass.
So with the enhancements since then $10 is probably a fair price. I just figure being okay to pay $12 but bailing for a few more dollars for a "luxury" product seems overblown, but again...it's up to the buyer on if they feel they are getting a good buy.
I never was a Runescape player, but I was hardcore Ultima Online in the early days. Looking at the newest versions out there, it's intriguing, but also so much more complex now that I think I'd enjoy watching gameplay more than playing it now. Age catches up to you.
It's not a popular opinion, and I'm sure I'll get downvoted for the reminder, but what is $5 then in 2024 dollars? Just to keep a perspective that inflation does happen, and $5 is not a lot of money now.
However, if you're getting less of a product with a lot of eye candy to hide that fact, then get the pitchforks back out. In the end it's a matter of if it's worth the cost, no matter what the amount is.
A mark of a great game is its replayability. I know for some that's difficult because of the knowledge you have afterwards, but it can still be fun to relive things. On the flip side, a not so great game is the one where you never want to go through the struggle and grind again because it frankly wasn't fun.