You're still assuming that the path is coming up from behind the ISS, in the same direction ISS is moving. If it's moving in the opposite direction, it would have to come to a stop and then accelerate to catch up to the ISS. Or, if it coming in at a right angle, it would have to shed all that extra perpendicular velocity and add all the parallel velocity. Only in the most perfectly aligned case could it be 4 km/s.

Note that the problem is larger than they made it sound, as those are vectors as well. The sample return mission is almost certainly not going to be coming on a path aligned with the ISS orbit that only needs to slow 4 km/s to meet it.

Also, I would think that it would increase the risk to ISS, some of the return capacity is already booked, and that doing the load/transfer of samples and ensuring everything is balanced and secured appropriately for reentry is hard.

That was my issue with OP's post: didn't suggest talking or anything, just skip that and go for breakup instead of investigate as the only alternatives.

I thought that on my initial read as well, but when I noticed the gap and read some of their other replies, I saw the original post differently.

It's possible to have "suspicions" without losing trust, and for those suspicions to have reasonable and true explanations due to miscommunications and differences in perception. Advising people to break up because of suspicions alone is terrible advice. Note that there is a lot of ambiguity here in how we all interpret "suspicions" as well, which means not everyone is necessarily talking about the same sort of thing.

That's not what I said though.

Of course, no one is under any obligation to stay with anyone else, ever.

But, for a cheater to be the one that breaks the trust, and then say "if you don't trust me, you should break up with me instead of spying on me trying to discover the truth", then that's manipulative. The cheater, in that scenario, wants the best of everything: the benefits of infidelity, not getting challenged or being proved to be a cheater, and not having to initiate the breakup themselves, so they can reap the benefits of both relationships as long as possible.

>If you are spying on your SO, confronting them and demanding they account for every minute of the day the relationship isn't healthy.

You're leaving a huge gap between "SO is doing/saying things that don't add up or seem suspicious or have lied for some reason" to "spying on them and demanding they account for every minute".

This is the gap where reasonable action and conversation lies, and your supposed LPT completely ignores it.

Your LPT seems to be written from the perspective of a cheater who doesn't want to be challenged or discovered on their cheating, and also wants to put the onus on the other person to break off the relationship. Win-win from the cheater's perspective: you either get to enjoy infidelity or the other person has to break it off, but without having proof so you don't have to face the accusation.

Terrible LPT.

Actual LPT: talk with SO before it escalates to demands or ultimatums. Also, don't cheat on your SO.

Why wouldn't you choose "per 1 million" though, for both?

It is more natural to think of whole numbers for something like killings, and the idea of "parts/things per million" is more common than your original "per 10M" scale.

Also, why are you calling it "per capita" when it is is "per 100k"? Per capita means for a single individual. That's like calling it percent (per 100k); it's not a per "cent" if it's not out of 100.

Also, why aren't your flags the same size, why are the dots so large, why are the flags even there, why isn't the arrow behind the box, why couldn't you figure out a way to label each country (I've seen busy charts do this, so it's possible).