Fer sure.
For a word to be kosher, does it have to be posted on a board that doesn’t mention meat?
Well, actually…this is a well respected part of science…
Given how fundamental this is to science, and how if you even went to university at all this kind of thing is covered in the very first lectures (yes, a spherical cow is a perfectly valid approximation, it’s ok to be 90% correct instead of 100%, all of science itself is about being 99.9…% correct, nothing is actually certain). So it appears that you should stick to your domain of expertise, which is apparently nitpicking and using uncommon english words.
Another poster pits themself.
Yes it is.
Regards,
Shodan
It is amusing, your total lack of self-awareness.
We can guess this question is a rhetorical question…
The nice thing about being on his “Ignore” list is that I can say anything I want, and he can’t contradict me even if he actually has a coherent point to make.
Fo sho, you mean. Urban Dictionary: fo sho
Gosh, how ignorant can you be. /s
You should really quit while you’re a behind.
Sam, did you go and put someone else on ignore? You did that after our talk?
Didn’t we decide that wasn’t a good thing to do?
I mean… stop this. You’re just so bad at this. You don’t know “obdurate” and you don’t recognize Val speak, but you are arrogant enough to correct (wrongly) on both.
Just… stop. For your own good.
I would be completely set back by the scientific modeling argument if you actually modeled something scientific. Instead, you model ideas which are sciencefictiontific, which is hardly the same thing at all.
The Fermi problem is about approximations and mental/mathematical shortcuts which are useful, no doubt about it. But try designing a bridge via Fermi-like approximations, see where that gets you.
Holy shit! You’re 16, right? Because this is what my kid does!
Your kid quotes himself?
That’s my guess. It’s an awkward age and but get through it with time.
Are you kidding? Have you ever met my daughter? She thinks she’s the star in a movie all about her… of course she quotes herself, almost as often as she likes to argue about things in which she knows very little. 
(But, yeah, didn’t do the multi-quote thing correctly. My bad.)
If you apply these Fermi estimates…or very detailed ones…to problems like nanotechnology, it shows it’s gonna work. If you do a Fermi estimate and it says a bridge is feasible, even if it’s over a farther distance than ever before, you’d be a fucking moron if you said the bridge was “science fiction”.
For instance, you can work out the mission requirements for a mission to Mars. Lots of details you might just estimate because you haven’t spent billions of dollars engineering the exact optimal decelerator vehicle for the actual landing, or the actual closed loop life support systems. But you can pretty damn confidently say ‘well, if we have somewhere between 60 billion and a trillion, we could probably get some astronaut boots to Mars’. You’d be a fucking moron if you called such a mission proposal ‘science fiction’.
Well, other people have done these estimates for things like brain preservation and hard nanotechnology. Guess what, they fucking pass and we have overwhelming evidence, in the fact that your own thick skull contains a chunk of working nanotechnology, that you can do this eventually.
So no. You should stick to your ignorance. Unless you are more credible than, oh, Eric Drexler or other lights in the field, you should shut the fuck up.
:sniff: 
A mission proposal with a $940 billion variance is not a mission proposal.
Even your analogies fail on the specifics.
And if I do “shut the fuck up”, well, that’s one more time I’m getting laid, and you’re not. 