 km\,s^{-1}}$ (comparable to the thin-disk velocity dispersion) so this is not a serious issue. But at our highest resolution, the non-conservative “worst case scenario” occurs where in some star-forming regions, net momentum is coherently deposited all in one direction owing to a pathological local particle distribution: the cloud then coherently “self-ejects” or “bootstraps” itself out of the disk. The thin disk is destroyed in the process, and the most extreme examples of this are visibly evident as “streaks” of stars from self-ejected clumps flying out of the galaxy center!

We also re-ran a “non-conservative” simulation of [**m12i**]{} at high resolution ($m_{i,\,1000}=7.0$) with a crude “cap” or upper limit arbitrarily imposed for the fraction of the momentum allowed to couple to any one particle, and to the maximum velocity change per event (of $50\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$). This is presented in Appendix \[sec:non.con.extreme\]. In that case, the system does indeed form a thin, extended disk, similar to our default coupling. This confirms that the “self-destruction” of the disk is driven by rare cases with large momentum errors, rather than small errors in “typical” cases.

As noted above, our older FIRE-1 algorithm used the “non-conservative” formulation. The MW-mass simulations published with that algorithm were all lower-resolution, where $|\Delta {\bf v}_{\rm err}|\lesssim 10\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, so these errors were not obvious (at dwarf masses, the lower metallicities and densities meant the cooling radii of blastwaves were explicitly resolved, so as Fig. \[fig:sf.history.sne.algorithm\] shows, the effects were even smaller, and their irregular morphologies meant perturbations to thin disks were not possible). However, running that algorithm in MW-mass halos at higher resolution led to similar errors as shown in Fig. \[fig:images.resolution.nonsymmetric\]. This, in fact, motivated the development of the new FIRE-2 algorithm.

We have confirmed that all of the conclusions above are not unique to the two halos above: we have re-run halos [**m09**]{} ($\sim 10^{9}\,{M_{\sun}}$), [**m10v**]{} ($\
km\,s^{-1}}$ (comparable to the thin - disk velocity dispersion) so this is not a unplayful consequence. But at our highest resolution, the non - conservative “ bad case scenario ” occurs where in some star topology - shape regions, final momentum is coherently situate all in one direction owe to a pathological local particle distribution: the swarm then coherently “ self - ejects ” or “ bootstraps ” itself out of the disk. The flimsy disk is destroyed in the procedure, and the most extreme examples of this are visibly evident as “ streak ” of stars from self - ejected clumps flying out of the galax center! 

 We besides re - ran a “ non - conservative ” simulation of [ * * m12i * * ] { } at high resoluteness ($ m_{i,\,1000}=7.0 $) with a crude “ cap ” or upper limit arbitrarily imposed for the fraction of the momentum admit to couple to any one particle, and to the maximum velocity change per event (of $ 50\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$). This is presented in Appendix   \[sec: non.con.extreme\ ]. In that case, the system does indeed form a slender, extended disk, exchangeable to our default coupling. This confirms that the “ self - destruction ” of the phonograph record is driven by rare cases with large momentum errors, preferably than small errors in “ typical ” cases. 

 As noted above, our older FIRE-1 algorithm use the “ non - conservative ” formulation. The MW - mass simulations publish with that algorithm were all lower - resolving power, where $ |\Delta { \bf v}_{\rm err}|\lesssim 10\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, so these errors were not obvious (at dwarf masses, the lower metallicities and density meant the cooling radii of blastwaves were explicitly purpose, so as Fig.   \[fig: sf.history.sne.algorithm\ ] shows, the effects were even smaller, and their irregular morphology meant perturbation to thin disk were not possible). However, run that algorithm in MW - mass halos at higher solution led to similar errors as shown in Fig.   \[fig: images.resolution.nonsymmetric\ ]. This, in fact, motivated the exploitation of the new FIRE-2 algorithm. 

 We have confirmed that all of the conclusions above are not unique to the two halos above: we have re - run halos [ * * m09 * * ] { } ($ \sim 10^{9}\,{M_{\sun}}$), [ * * m10v * * ] { } ($ \
 km\,d^{-1}}$ (comparable to the thin-aisk velocity dnwpersimn) so fhis is vot a serious issue. But at onr hughesu resolution, the nov-conservanive “worsr caww scenario” occurs where jk somz wtar-forming renions, net mmmentum is cohardncly deposited all in one direction oring to a pathological jocak parfpcoe distribution: the cloud theh cohertntly “self-ejects” ot “bootstraps” itself out of the disk. The thin disn is destroisd yb the procesr, and the most extreme examples of this are visibly exidenc as “streakw” if djars from seof-ejebted clumps flying oud of thr galaxy centev!

We anso re-ran a “non-conservatmve” simulation of [**m12i**]{} at high seaolution ($m_{i,\,1000}=7.0$) with q xrude “cap” or jppef ljmmt zrbitrwrimy imposed for the frqction of the momenuum qllowed to cohple tj wny one particle, and to the maximum velmcify change per event (of $50\,{\em km\,s^{-1}}$). This is presenjed in Appqndix \[sec:non.con.extreme\]. In that case, the system doev indxea firi q hhin, extended disk, similar to our default cou[mimg. This confirms that the “srlv-drftruction” of jhe disk ia driven by rare cwses wijh larte momenttm etrors, rather than small errirs in “typiccl” xases.

As noted abovz, our older YIRE-1 akgoriyhm used the “non-conservctive” rormulation. The MW-maar simulations puclixhad with ufat algorithm werq all lowxr-resplution, whete $|\Deltw {\bf v}_{\rm egr}|\lesssim 10\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, so thesf errlrv were not obvious (at dwarf masses, the loxxr metallicitoev atd densicies mcant the coolind radii of blaxtwaves were explicitlj resolvev, so as Fig. \[fyg:sf.history.sna.wlgorithm\] shmws, the qffexts qere evdv smaller, and yheir irrvgblar morpyologies meant perburbajikns to thin disjs qere not possibke). Fowqvvr, cunnigc that algorhthm in KW-masr halos at migfer tesolution led to sikilad errors as shown on Fig. \[fig:inages.resjlution.nonsymketric\]. This, in facu, motitated vhe defeljpment of the new FIRE-2 algoritgm.

We have cokfirmed that wll if the conclbsions above are not unique to the two helos above: we have re-ron halos [**m09**]{} ($\sim 10^{9}\,{M_{\sun}}$), [**m10r**]{} ($\
km\,s^{-1}}$ (comparable to the thin-disk velocity dispersion) is a serious But at our case occurs where in star-forming regions, net is coherently deposited all in one owing to a pathological local particle distribution: the cloud then coherently “self-ejects” or itself out of the disk. The thin disk is destroyed in the process, the extreme of are visibly evident as “streaks” of stars from self-ejected clumps flying out of the galaxy center! also re-ran a “non-conservative” simulation of [**m12i**]{} at resolution ($m_{i,\,1000}=7.0$) with a “cap” or upper limit arbitrarily for fraction of momentum to to any one and to the maximum velocity change per event (of $50\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$). This is presented in Appendix \[sec:non.con.extreme\]. that case, does indeed a extended similar to our This confirms that the “self-destruction” of driven by rare cases with large momentum errors, than small in “typical” cases. As noted above, older FIRE-1 algorithm used the “non-conservative” formulation. The simulations published with that algorithm were all lower-resolution, where $|\Delta {\bf v}_{\rm err}|\lesssim 10\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, errors were not obvious dwarf masses, the metallicities densities the radii of were explicitly resolved, so as Fig. \[fig:sf.history.sne.algorithm\] shows, the effects were smaller, and their irregular morphologies meant perturbations to thin disks possible). running that algorithm MW-mass halos at higher led similar errors as shown \[fig:images.resolution.nonsymmetric\]. in development the FIRE-2 algorithm. We have that all of the conclusions are not unique to have re-run halos [**m09**]{} ($\sim 10^{9}\,{M_{\sun}}$), [**m10v**]{} ($\
 km\,s^{-1}}$ (comparable to the thin-disK velocity dIsperSioN) so ThIs is Not a Serious issue. BuT At ouR highest resolution, the nOn-conSeRVatiVE “wOrst cAse scenARiO” OCcuRs WhEre In SOmE star-ForMing regIons, net momEntUm Is coherently DEpOsited all iN onE direction owIng To a patHoLogICal loCal PartiCle disTRibutiOn: the clouD tHEn coheREntly “seLF-EjEcts” Or “bootstraps” itselF OuT Of the disk. The thIn disk Is DEsTROyeD in The process, AnD the mOSt extreME eXAMPleS Of this are visiBly evident aS “StrEaks” of StArs FRom selF-ejecTeD CluMps flying ouT of tHe galaxy cEnter!

WE Also re-rAN a “non-coNservaTivE” siMulaTIoN oF [**m12i**]{} At HIgh REsOluTIon ($M_{i,\,1000}=7.0$) with a cRuDe “Cap” or UppeR LIMIt arBitRariLy impOsed for the fraCtiOn of THe mOmentUm allOwed To CouplE to any One paRtIcle, and to the maxImum Velocity cHanGe Per EvEnt (of $50\,{\RM km\,s^{-1}}$). ThIs iS prEsented In AppenDIx \[sEc:NON.CoN.extreme\]. In that case, ThE SYsTem does iNdeed fORm A tHIn, extendEd DisK, simILAr to oUr deFAuLt coupliNg. This COnFiRms that ThE “self-dEsTruCtiOn” of tHE disK is driVen by rarE caseS With large momenTUm errors, ratheR ThAN SmALl erRorS in “typical” cAses.

aS notEd abOVe, Our OLder FiRE-1 alGoRItHM used the “non-conservaTiVe” formUlatiOn. The MW-mass siMulations pUBLIshed witH thaT AlGOrithm were all lOwer-rEsolution, wHEre $|\Delta {\Bf v}_{\rm Err}|\lesssIm 10\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, so THEse errorS weRe nOt oBviOUS (aT dwarf masses, tHE LoweR mEtallicItiEs and deNsiTieS meAnt ThE cooling rAdii of blAsTwAvEs WerE explICitly resOlVed, So As FIg. \[fig:SF.histoRy.sne.AlgoRiThM\] ShoWs, the efFEcTS Were EvEn SmalLer, AnD theiR irrEGulAr morphOlogies meAnt PErtuRbAtIons to tHin disks were nOt Possible). HoWeVer, RunninG THat algorIthm in MW-mass halos at highER resoluTioN led tO simIlar errorS as Shown iN FiG. \[Fig:imaGes.resOlutiOn.NonSYMmetrIC\]. thIs, iN fAct, motivatED The DevelOpMent Of the neW FIRE-2 algorithm.

We haVE coNfirmed that alL of The cONClUsiONs ABovE aRE noT UNique to the two haLos above: we HaVE rE-run halos [**m09**]{} ($\SIm 10^{9}\,{M_{\SuN}}$), [**m10v**]{} ($\
 km\,s^{-1}}$ (comparableto the thi n-dis k v elo ci ty d ispe rsion) so this is n ot a serious issue. Bu t atou r  hig h es t res olution ,  t h e  no n- co nse rv a ti ve “w ors t casescenario”occ ur s where in s o me  star-form ing  regions, ne t m omentu misc ohere ntl y dep osited all in  one dire ct i on owi n g to ap a th olog ical local partic l ed istribution: t he clo ud th e n  co her ently “sel f- eject s ” or “b o ot s t r aps ”  itself out o f the disk. The  thindi ski s dest royed  i n  th e process,andthe mostextrem e  exampl e s of th is are  vi sib ly e v id en t a s“ str e ak s”o f s tars fro mse lf-ej ecte d c l umps  fl ying  outof the galaxy  ce nter ! 

W e als o re- rana“non- conser vativ e”  simulation of[**m 12i**]{}athi ghre solut i on ($m _{i ,\, 1000}=7 .0$) wi t h a  c r u d e“cap” or upper lim it a rb itrarily  impos e dfo r  the fra ct ion  oft h e mom entu m  a llowed t o coup l eto  any on epartic le , a ndto th e  max imum v elocitychang e  per event (of $50\,{\rm km\ , s^ { - 1} } $).Thi s is presen tedi n Ap pend i x\[s e c:non .con. ex t re m e\]. In that case,th e syst em do es indeed for m a thin,e x t ended di sk,s im i lar to our def aultcoupling.T his conf irmsthat the  “self-de s t ruction”  of  th e d isk i sdriven by rar e case swith la rge  moment umerr ors , r at her thansmall er ro rs  i n“ty pical ”  cases.
A s n ot edabove ,  our o lderFIRE -1  a l gor ithm us e dt h e “n on -c onse rva ti ve” f ormu l ati on. The  MW-masssim u lati on spublish ed with thatal gorithm we re  al l lowe r - resoluti on, where $|\Delta {\bf v}_{\rm  er r}|\l esss im 10\,{\ rmkm\,s^ {-1 } }$, so  these  erro rs  we r e  noto b vi ous  ( at dwarf m a s ses , the  l ower  metall icities and densit i esmeant the coo lin g ra d i iofb la s twa ve s  we r e  explicitly res olved, soas Fi g. \[fig:s f .hi st ory.sne .algori thm\] shows,the effec ts were e ve n sm a l ler , and thei r irregu lar morph o logie s  m eantper turbat io nsto th in dis k s w ere n ot pos si ble).Howev er , runnin g that algorithm in MW- mass h alosathigher re sol u tio n led tosimi lar errors  as  sh own i n F i g. \[ fig: i ma ges . resol utio n .nonsymme t ri c\] . Th is, in fact , m oti vated  th e  devel opme nt of the new FIR E -2 algorithm.
Weh a vecon f irme dthat all of th e c on c l usions a bo ve are notunique t ot he tw o halo s abov e: we h a v er e-runhalo s [ **m09**]{ } ( $\ s im 10^{ 9} \, { M_{\su n}}$ ),  [**m1 0v**]{ }  ($\ 
 km\,s^{-1}}$_(comparable to_the thin-disk velocity dispersion)_so this_is_not a_serious_issue. But at_our highest resolution,_the non-conservative “worst case_scenario” occurs where_in_some star-forming regions, net momentum is coherently deposited all in one direction owing to_a_pathological local_particle_distribution:_the cloud then coherently “self-ejects”_or “bootstraps” itself out of_the disk._The thin disk is destroyed in the process,_and_the most extreme_examples of this are visibly evident as “streaks” of_stars from self-ejected clumps flying out_of the galaxy_center!

We_also_re-ran a “non-conservative” simulation_of [**m12i**]{} at high resolution ($m_{i,\,1000}=7.0$)_with a crude “cap” or upper_limit arbitrarily imposed for the fraction of_the momentum allowed to couple to_any one particle, and to_the maximum_velocity change per event (of_$50\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$). This_is presented_in Appendix \[sec:non.con.extreme\]. In_that case, the system does indeed_form a thin,_extended disk, similar to our default_coupling._This confirms that_the_“self-destruction”_of the_disk is driven_by_rare cases_with_large momentum errors, rather than small_errors_in “typical” cases.

As noted above, our older_FIRE-1 algorithm used the_“non-conservative”_formulation. The MW-mass simulations_published with that algorithm were_all lower-resolution, where $|\Delta {\bf v}_{\rm_err}|\lesssim 10\,{\rm_km\,s^{-1}}$, so_these errors were not obvious (at dwarf masses, the lower metallicities_and densities meant the cooling radii_of blastwaves were explicitly_resolved, so_as_Fig. \[fig:sf.history.sne.algorithm\] shows, the_effects_were even_smaller, and their irregular morphologies meant perturbations_to thin_disks were not possible). However, running_that algorithm in MW-mass_halos_at higher resolution led to similar_errors as shown in Fig. \[fig:images.resolution.nonsymmetric\]. This,_in fact, motivated the development_of_the_new FIRE-2 algorithm.

We have confirmed_that all of the conclusions above_are not unique_to the two halos above: we have_re-run_halos [**m09**]{} ($\sim 10^{9}\,{M_{\sun}}$), [**m10v**]{} ($\