All Activity

Firstly, I loved the two videos you shared! They were a lot of fun. Now the reason I honed in on this particular question of yours; it's most definitely both. Due to research in consume psychology, a lot of our devices and the software that runs them, are designed to take advantage of human psychology via dopamine feedback loops. From the way notifications work to the sounds the UI makes etc, then layer on top of that search algorithms. These devices are essentially like a button that you can press to give yourself a dopamine fix or if dopamine isn't your cup of tea and you're more of a stress addict, you can access cortisol whenever you want with these devices too. How humans are is what gave rise to the problem of how powerful these devices are, but serious consideration has been made with these design choices to maximize profit over human betterment or improving quality of life. The devices can still do that, but you have to wade through all the manipulation and avoid all the distractions in the process. The internet especially is the quintessential field of pig shit that someone dropped a few precious gems into at this point. Sure the gems are there, but how much pig shit can a person wade through to find them? And what do you do about all the people around you in the field who think they've found a gem and are holding up a turd? Yeah it sounds like you have a lot of reading up to do on anti-fascism but it is a core principle of a functioning democracy, complete or representative. It isn't a group or a movement it's a response to the threat of authoritarian dictatorships who would silence public dessent with violent suppression to create a centralized autocracy under them.

Quick clarification, this is difficult to explain. If you stack spheres on top of one another in the z line from one central point, but there are spheres left, right, top, and bottom around it about the x and y lines. The spheres you stack on top of those peripheral spheres (x and y) in the z line will be smaller from your point of view because they are not coming from the center. Not only that, if you were to use the shape of a cone with the pointy end facing toward an observer to factor in for how the dimensions of the circles around the central circle shrink, the circles will overlap the central circle! The viewing angle of the observer's perspective of gravitational bodies warps the dimensions they move along in a way calculus cannot geometrically fix. Of course if it is one gravitational body the central radius is all you need, and with two we can use where the Lagrangian coordinate aught to be to fix it. With 3 onward this fix becomes exceedingly arduous and approximated. You see with all the geometry we have we've never really found the solution to that particular problem, we speak of higher dimensions but we never really learned how to get a proper math for 3 dimensions. I have, I do know how that math works:

You see it is easy to confuse all of these terms, a real digitally-automated user-interface that can do any of the things in my topic title fully utilizes almost every quantum phenomenon in gestalt except maybe electrodeionization (preferring to use photoconductivity in one of the components). It can even make use of a combination of photovoltaics in unison with electroluminescence and excitons that, when combined with my own type of photoionized-electroluminescent laser receiver can multiply the energy reabsorbed back into a laser-based plasma-fusion reactor. For the synthesis of the materials exhibiting these quantum properties from natural places on earth I would suggest starting with crystals and metallics (with the understanding these form from various volcanic and hydrothermal activity that heats, mixes, and ultimately transmutes rock-based materials from all different places carried to one hydrothermal vent by oceanic current or some other volcanized area via plate tectonics) along with chemical reactions in the lab. Might I suggest creating deep subterranean tunnels to release pressurized volcanic flows of ionized gas and magma directly into a facility that needs both the heat, ionized gas and the material in magma flows to do the work? The Mariana's trench is the deepest place on earth and therefore the best place to start on such tunnels. Constructing the hollow earth would be the best way to initiate the next era of manufacturing mass amounts of tech and industry.

I misspoke, bottom line is there is no difference between the integral and the derivative, the derivative a^b multiplies b and subtracts it by one in the exponent, the integral doesn't change the original b value that gets subtracted in the derivation which is why it has to divide by b+1. Bottom line is I falsely claimed it had something to do with limits. Really it is a product of combinatorics with one repeated digit. In my previous post I write that it doesn't work for the combinatorial of 4 where you have one digit repeat, I believe this is because 4 is a square. It worked for 2, 3, and 6. But I also believe it should work for 5, 8, 12 and 14 digits because none of those are squares. It probably wouldn't work for 9. Bottom line is the number of configurations where there is one repeated digit is exactly equal to dividend of the derivative of a number of digits and that same number of digits if that number is not a square, this has been repeatedly proved in this topic and is so uncanny that I picked one repeated digit to start examining password combinations just before taking calculus using math and that's what worked with the power rule, without which there would be no calculus, that I'm seriously questioning the nature of my reality.

Making a prediction doesn’t make it science. There’s the joke about economists predicting nine of the last four recessions. Science requires more. Does she say when the next US civil war will start?

I had a question today as a part of my studies which was 1) If space is ever expanding what is the pressure on the creating space (universe) upon creation and 2) at what rate might you assume the quantum field is also being created and is it being affected by this pressure of creation. This is of course all theoretical and asking for what may lead you to create equations with principal. Personally I sometime like to think as the universe ever expands and brings in reality its also very similar to a computer game in which a player travels through areas of a map waiting for it to load upon entering.

He’s a know-it-all, and some would extend that to insufferable know-it-all. Some fraction of the population gets annoyed at nit-picking, and some fraction enjoys diving into minutiae. There will always be conflicts of this sort with public figures. (I mean, some people didn’t like Mister Rogers)

! Moderator Note Speculation about accident or assassination is premature. Let’s stick to facts as they are revealed.

Bump Regarding Neil deGrasse Tyson - why does a part of the internet have such a beef with him? It looks to me that a certain small percentage of people on the web dislike him. Can any legitimate criticism be levied against him or do they just hate him for the sake of hating? Personally the only criticism I can levy against is the inaccurate portrayal of Giordano Bruno's trial in Cosmos.

A helicopter carrying Ebrahim Raisi the President of Iran has gone missing in a remote region of NW Iran close to the border with Azerbaijan. Foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian is also said to have been onboard the same craft which was part of a convoy of three helicopters that were returning from a visit to mark the inauguration of a new dam in neighbouring Azerbaijan. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/5/19/iran-helicopter-accident-live-president-fm-on-missing-aircraft Various reports from Iranian news agencies say that the helicopter made a “hard landing” somwhere near the Iranian border town of Jolfa. Iranian rescue teams are struggling to reach the location because of the rugged terrain and heavy fog, with Iranian TV showing visibility down to 5m in places. Two other helicopters in the same convoy made a safe return, and some Iranian sources indicate that an emergency phone call was received from some of the people onboard the missing helicopter. Other sources say that Iranian TV is currently screening recitations of verses from the Quran, and that the VP has already formed an emergency government. The helicopters used to transport the Iranian president are ageing Russian made Mil Mi-17 military transports which date back to 1975. They have been involved in a number of incidents and crashes in recent years.

You missing it's a weak acid. The dissociation of carbonic acid is not half H2CO3 half HCO3-. This is only valid if you have a buffer of carbonic acid and (sodium) hydrogencarbonate half half. Then pH is pKa according Hendersson Hasselbalch. pH = 0.5* (pka-logc) for weak acid.

Fuel contanimation, an acceptable excuse to blame it on god rather than pay out on the bet...

It turns out that predicting a civil war is possible (so science) and it has a lot to do with who holds the purse strings. The Ted talk I linked, does a much better job of explianing why...

A preliminary NTSB report on the collision of the MV Dali with the Francis Scott Key Bridge has been published. A detailed read-through of the provisional findings can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etCUog15pWA Fuel contamination was apparently not the cause of this accident. There were 3 different types of fuel in use onboard the Dali, and all the samples tested clear. The problem seems to have been entirely electrical in nature. The Dali suffered two major power failures in quick succession; the first took out the HR1 and LR1 overcurrent breakers either side of a large transformer which linked the 6600V diesel generator bus to the main low voltage 440V power bus. This failure disabled the lights, comms, navigation systems, and most critical of all, it took out the power to the oil pumps and cooling water pumps servicing the main engine. The loss of these pumps triggered an automatic shutdown of the main engine. The second electrical failure occurred as the crew attempted to restore power to the 440V bus. This time two current overload breakers DGR4 and DGR3 failed, which disconnected the two main diesel generators (#4 and #3) that were online and supplying the high voltage 6600V bus. (Two of the four main diesel generators have to be online to restart the main engine). An emergency generator re-powered the three steering pumps which enabled the pilots to exercise some degree of rudder control, but unfortunately with the main engine and propellor stopped, the steering effect of the rudder is very much reduced. With the Dali only 0.6 miles - or 3 ship lengths - from the Key Bridge when the first electrical blackout happened at 0125, there simply wasn’t enough sea room to avoid a collision. One relevant detail mentioned in the report was this: Which explains why they couldn’t simply ring up "Full Speed Astern" on the engine telegraph.

Who?

One thing about the integral of [math]x^n[/math] that I find interesting is the case of [math]n = -1[/math]: [math]\displaystyle \int x^n\, dx = \begin{cases}\ \dfrac{x^{n+1}}{n+1} + C & \text{if } n \neq -1 \\ \\ \ \log(x) + C &\text{if } n = -1 \end{cases}[/math] Note that: [math]\displaystyle \int x^{-1 + \varepsilon} \ dx = \dfrac{x^{\varepsilon}}{\varepsilon} + C[/math] for all [math]\varepsilon \neq 0[/math] regardless of how small [math]\varepsilon[/math] is. Furthermore, note that [math]x^{-1 - \varepsilon}[/math] can be deformed to [math]x^{-1 + \varepsilon}[/math] without discontinuity at [math]x^{-1}[/math]. Therefore, one would expect that: [math]\displaystyle \int x^{-1 - \varepsilon} \, dx[/math] can be deformed to: [math]\displaystyle \int x^{-1 + \varepsilon} \ dx[/math] without discontinuity at: [math]\displaystyle \int x^{-1} \ dx[/math] even though the above formula seems to indicate that this is not the case. But let's consider the definite integral: [math]\displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \displaystyle \int_{1}^{x} u^{-1 + \varepsilon} \ du[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \dfrac{x^{\varepsilon} - 1}{\varepsilon}[/math] [math]= \log(x)[/math] Thus, it can be seen that the definite integral of [math]x^{-1 + \varepsilon}[/math] is continuous with respect to [math]\varepsilon[/math] at [math]x^{-1}[/math]. Interestingly, this notion can be extended to the definite integral of [math]\log(x)[/math] as follows: [math]\displaystyle \int_{1}^{x} \log(v) \ dv[/math] [math]= x \log(x) - x + 1[/math] And: [math]\displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \displaystyle \int_{1}^{x} \displaystyle \int_{1}^{v} u^{-1 + \varepsilon} \ du \ dv[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \displaystyle \int_{1}^{x} \dfrac{v^{\varepsilon} - 1}{\varepsilon} \ dv[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \dfrac{x^{\varepsilon + 1}}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} - \dfrac{x}{\varepsilon} - \dfrac{1}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} + \dfrac{1}{\varepsilon}[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \dfrac{x^{\varepsilon + 1}}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} - \dfrac{x (\varepsilon + 1)}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} - \dfrac{1}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} + \dfrac{(\varepsilon + 1)}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)}[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \dfrac{x^{\varepsilon + 1}}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} - \dfrac{x \varepsilon}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} - \dfrac{x}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} - \dfrac{1}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} + \dfrac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} + \dfrac{1}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)}[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \dfrac{x^{\varepsilon + 1}}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} - \dfrac{x \varepsilon}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} - \dfrac{x}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)} + \dfrac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon + 1)}[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \dfrac{x^{\varepsilon + 1}}{\varepsilon} - \dfrac{x \varepsilon}{\varepsilon} - \dfrac{x}{\varepsilon} + \dfrac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \dfrac{x^{\varepsilon + 1}}{\varepsilon} - x - \dfrac{x}{\varepsilon} + 1[/math] [math]= x \Big(\displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \dfrac{x^{\varepsilon} - 1}{\varepsilon}\Big) - x + 1[/math] [math]= x \log(x) - x + 1[/math] However, if one starts with [math]x^{\varepsilon}[/math] and form the derivative: [math]\displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \dfrac{dx^{\varepsilon}}{dx}[/math] [math]= \displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \varepsilon x^{\varepsilon - 1}[/math] [math]= 0[/math] If we consider [math]\varepsilon[/math] to be small but not infinitesimal, then for the integral, we start with [math]x^{\varepsilon - 1}[/math] and end with [math]\dfrac{x^{\varepsilon}}{\varepsilon}[/math], whereas for the derivative, we start with [math]x^{\varepsilon}[/math] and end with [math]\varepsilon x^{\varepsilon - 1}[/math]. That is, the derivative is smaller than the integral by factor of [math]\varepsilon[/math], becoming zero in the limit. Thus, although repeated integration starting from [math]x^{\varepsilon - 1}[/math] can use the power function integration formula, the resulting sequence of functions are distinct from power functions obtained by starting from, for example, [math]x^0[/math].

That’s interesting. What chemical process is that?

They are doing a bad job in explaining how the pH changes when adding carbonates to water. Either sodium bicarbonate or another carbonate. I tried to understand it by myself and google searches but still haven't found a way. This is the problem: So the water has a pH of 6.35. Which is the pKa value of H2CO3/HCO3-. So in solution at this pH there should be 50% H2CO3, 50% HCO3- and 0% CO32-. So in general they now start calculating stuff with the electroneutrality equation which is: H+= HCO3- + 2*CO32- + OH- . Lets assume that the total of carbonates species is 0.03 mol/L at a pH of 6.35. Than 50%*0,03 = 0.015 mol/L of H2CO3 and 0.015 mol/L of HCO3- in solution. There is also kw/10-6.35=10-7.65 mol/L OH- present in solution. So filling this in the electroneutrality equation: H+= 0.015 + 10-7.65 = 0.015 mol/L. So this is a bit confusing. Since pH is 6,35 it should be H+= 10-6.35 mol/L. Not 0.015 mol/L. My question is. What am I missing here. Can somebody help clear the confusion.

deleted

Not only the dose; many other factors are involved. My brother eats better than I do, works out with weights like a madman, and walks two hours per day.; I eat most anything I want, use sugar, and really need to get back to the gym as I'm gaining weight. He is one year older than me, but he has diabetes ( under excellent control ), and I don't. I gave an example of risk analysis to Dimreepr and MSC in the thread regarding the use of atomic weapons on Japan, in WW2. The probability of an incident, and the severity of the incident, must both be considered; some, in this thread are only considering one or the other. I work in a Chemical plant which, on a regular basis, has up to 70 000 lbs of 95 - 99.99996 % Phosphine, liquified at 700 psi. You can look up the MSDS for yourself as to its dangers. Yet, I worry more about the 15 min drive to work, and back home.

100^9/10^10=100000000->log100100000000=4 Yeah I'm betting this method wouldn't work for 10 digits since it links to 4 which didn't work. Maybe 12 digits? 144^11/12^12=61917364224->log14461917364224=5 Nope! 14? 196^13/14^14=56693912375296->log19656693912375296=6 ✓! So 2, 3, 6, 8, & 14 all check out for this method of placing one repeating digit into a combinatorics problem which I'm betting is where the power rule came from.

Depends on the species. Franklin's 50/500 rule is often cited for humans (I just wrote on this on another thread but can't find atm) and that top number is seen as what is needed for longterm viability and sufficient genetic diversity. Lower numbers and a species can wither. Too much inbreeding, losses of useful genetic variants to genetic drift, etc. Most mutations are deleterious, about 75-80% of single nucleotide variants, so the lucky dice roll of a positive mutation (roughly 1-2%) that adds useful diversity is going to be rare in too small of a population. I've seen debate on the number, but there seems to be some agreement that 500-600 is enough for humans. I know NASA has funded some studies on this, with a longterm view to understanding what are viable populations for establishing colonies on other worlds.

Obviously if anyone 5 digits they would have seen why it is an incompatible way to proof the power rule. 6's log links to 2. Let's try it for next lower even number, 2 digits. 11 {2}, has a value of 1 configurations, x2 is 2. ((2x2)^(2-1))/2^2 = 1. If I did 8 digits (64^7/8^8=262144), I'm betting that since log64(262144)=3 you wouldn't have to do it with 8 again either, because 8's log links to 3. If you had 3 digits 113 131 311 = 3 and (9^2)/(3^3)=3 Let me see if I didn't do 4 wrong: 1123 {4} 1. 1123 2. 1132 3. 1231 4. 1321 5. 2311 6. 3211 7. 3112 8. 2113 9. 1213 10. 1312 11. 3121 12. 2131 1124 {3} 13. 1124 etc... 12 x 2 = 24 so yeah it wouldn't work like I said with 1 repeating it had 4 extra configurations in it. And even if I hadn't multiplied by 2, 16^3/4^4=16, so 4^4 x 12 wouldn't do it. It seems that Newton could have come up with the power rule by using one repeating digit in a combinatorics equation where the logarithms link, like 3 and 8, or 2 and 6.

Dear all, for a biological experiment I have acquired 10 mg of CHIR 99021 (laduviglusib). In order to obtain a 10 mM stock solution I had to dissolve the powder in 2.15 mL of Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). Unfortunately, I tried to dissolve the powder in distilled water. That powder is said to be insoluble in water. In order to obtain again the powder I tried to centrifuge the solution (1500 rpm, 20 minutes), hoping that the powder would precipitate, but nothing happened. I would like to know how to dissolve that solution: I sm thinking to put another 2.15 mL of DMSO in the water solution in order to have a stock solution of 5 mM (which would be fine for me). What would you suggest? Thank you very much.

I'm inclined to think that "dangerous chemical" means dangerous to those who work with the chemical as a chemical as well as to those in the vicinity of any accident from working with the chemical. Dangerous chemicals require more stringent safety protocols, which reduce the likelihood of deaths but not the danger. The danger from sugar does not come from it being a chemical, but rather from it being a food. Similarly, the danger from drowning in water does not come from water being a chemical. On the other hand, safety protocols demand that no one travel in an elevator with liquid nitrogen. That is, liquid nitrogen might not be especially dangerous, but it does have its hazards which can lead to death. Ethers are not especially dangerous... unless they're old, in which case, distilling them can lead to an explosion. Also, dangerous chemicals need not be just about death, but also serious injury. For example, osmium tetroxide is dangerous because it can lead to blindness if any gets on the eyeball.