All Activity

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.

I agree. But the dose is really important.

deleted

Obviously the OP was wrong about calculating the configurations but, given 10 x ((25 x 10!)/4!), 1123456789 {0} is like 1/100th of the possible combinations of repeating number so in theory there's plenty of room left for the rest of repeating configurations. And this is why the derivative of an exponent maximizes its dimensions.

How about posting stuff that has context and explanation, that’s on-topic? That might help. I mean, what does “It's the people who pay for protection, that inspires a war...” mean? Who are the people to which you refer? How are they paying for protection? How does this “inspire war”? How is any of this relevant?

What information would convince you?

I still think HFCS is more likely to harm you. In the US between 1975 and 2009 109 people died from botulism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460764/#:~:text=Overall mortality was 3.0% with,other%2Funknown botulism cases]. HFCS is linked to diabetes, and while I don't know to what extent, in 2021 almost 400,000 people in the US died as a result of diabetes. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-high-fructose-corn-syrup-is-bad#4.-Excessive-intake-is-linked-to-diabetes

A femtogram of BTX is less likely to harm you than a tonne of HFCS. Ask Paracelsus. We are, in fact, exposed to both. (there are going to be traces of BTX in some of the things you eat). And there's plenty of HFCS. Which one is more likely to harm you?

When I was in Paris ,aged 15 my host family took me out for the day to look at the Arc de Triomphe. As we looked at Napoleon's different victorious battles and dates that were inscribed on the monument I asked out loud and in complete naiveté "Where is Waterloo?" To complete silence . I was completely unembarassed .I think I was put right when we got home. Later I amused my friends by describing bad things as "terrible" when that actually means "really good"( a mistake categorised as a "false friend") Ps "espèce de con " or "espèce de conard" is a fine insult and "Le Canard enchainé" was the main satirical weekly magazine back then.

Can a 10 km wide asteroid be a "rubble pile"? However, composition shouldn't make any difference. A series of nuclear explosions in the path of ANY 10 km wide asteroid will do two things: it would fuse together any loose rocks facing the explosion, and cause outgassing with each explosion. ENOUGH of these explosions, at the correct distance, can change its' course enough to miss earth. Why not? Remember, it won't get here for 100 years.

@CharonY Anything to say here?

When in France, I greatly amused some locals by referring to the cruise liner company as Conard, instead of Cunard. This was how I learned that connard is French for asshole. I wasn't too embarassed, thanks to the friendly company and my already earned status as something of a clown.

As far as the face-on-face contact problem goes, I realize that I can't remove contact points willy-nilly. But it is important to make sure, each contact normal is facing the same direction. Sometimes they don't due to numerical issues. So, I remove contacts that don't face the same direction, as the normal returned by the GJKEPA. Sometimes objects will interpenetrate a tiny amount, and pop out on another side, resulting in a bad GJKEPA normal. This is particularly the case for very neat stacks. Messy stacks don't have this problem. But it seems as long as I used small enough time steps, this doesn't happen. Is this the correct way to do it? My next question: What is the best way to find contact data? When GJKEPA returns a normal end location, that is all I need to feed into my contact force solver, when one of the objects is a sphere. For polytopes this is not the case. I am currently going through all vertex face and edge combinations if a collision was detected. This seems inefficient. Also, I want the geometry of the objects to be consistent between collision and contact forces. But because I am using margins with collision detection, all the edges and vertices are beveled. Is it sufficient for the signed distance of the unenlarged objects to be negative or less than the sum of the margins? Thank you. I did not have a computer for a few weeks.

You’re still going to have mutations.

I mean the power rule has to be a derivative of the combinatorics above, where there is only one repeating number that repeats once, in that combinatorics you have to leave one number out to find the number of combinations and then swap it for one other number. For 4 digits you could have 4 repeating once, twice, thrice, or all numbers could be 4, same for 3,2,1; where altogether including the 4 x 24 value, you have a total of 4^4 possible figurations. But when only one of those repeats once, it's only 16 possible configurations. The derivative 16^3=16 x 4^4. You can clearly see that the formula where the power rule comes into play is logn(x), where x=c times d, where if the total number of possible configurations is d=a^b and n=a times b. Finally, c=total number of possible configurations with one repeating number that repeats once as shown above. From that you can recognize the power rule a^b = (a times b)^(b-1), and its integral a^b=(a/(b+1))^(b+1) which has nothing to do with the economic optimization problem I had written out about the garden other than it using a the power rule one time. So if you had up all those functions in the OP picture you should get 10^18/10^10=10^8, log100(10^18)=9; (10^10)'=100^9

Let's say we have a small, genetically limited population due to bottleneck/founder effect - is there a way for such a population to increase it's genetic diversity other than by introducing new DNA from the outside? I am talking about small, genetically limited populations like the Amish.

I completely relate to this! Your upper lip probably curled when you purposely misspelled it above. We're proud of our use of the written word, and go to some effort to craft reasoned responses hoping they're clearly understood. Having a word flagged in an otherwise well-crafted sentence and hitting submit is like having a great conversation with someone but belching every time you try to say their name. Ignore those flags at your peril! As a side note, watch out for the double consonants and vowels. I've noticed a tendency of mine to triple tap when gooogling flaggged missspelllings due to embarrrasssment at my fooolishnesss.

Just another perspective... It's the people who pay for protection, that inspires a war... IOW, what am I free to express, without a barrage of negs, that have no context or explanation???

It’s irrelevant, really - that some people would observe battles for entertainment is not one of the causes of the war. I’m not sure if one can make an argument that it’s a sign of living in or not living in a democracy, but nobody has made that argument, one way or another. Since that’s the topic of the OP, why bring it up?

My previous post was meant to be humorous. But on a serious note, embarrassment definitely has 'context'. At different times of my life, I have been embarrassed by different things ( lately sight and age related ). It also depends on the presence of an 'audience', , the size, age and gender of that audience. And some of these factors affect people differently or not at all. As an example, in the line above, I originally wrote "been enbarrassed by", and the editor flagged it as misspelled. I checked the two Rs and the two Ss, I even googled the word, until I finally realized I had typed N instead of M ( eyesight issue ). And even though it was just me and my cat, I still felt a twinge of embarrassment at my foolishness.

Indeed my apologies, I could have sworn that my sentence ended with "for some people", it's what I intended to write. It was my perspective, but then I've never had to fight to protect him. My apologies to all who found my words objectionable, and I'm not trying to Present the English solution as somehow better; for them every slave was pure profit; they didn't care if they lived or died, as long as they couldn't escape then enough of them survived, to pay for the trip + fund's for the next trip + bonus, many steps down the moral ladder than anything America could claim; in the end we had made enough, before the noise of moral objection came into focus, America didn't have that luxury. Civil War, 1861-1865 | Slavery, Abolition, Emancipation and Freedom - CURIOSity Digital Collections (harvard.edu)

! Moderator Note This thread has been a good example of why we insist on quantifying things in physics. Hand-waving doesn’t remove the danger that you’re fooling yourself, but numbers don’t lie. If you don’t have a testable model, it’s just a WAG. We’re done here. Don’t re-introduce the topic.

Somebody has to dance on stage at Chippendales. Some folks just don’t feel embarrassed, or don’t care, in certain situations. When I was young, I wasn’t convinced that embarrassment wasn’t fatal. As I got older I got more comfortable with myself, and cared a lot less - I could laugh at myself if I did something stupid or klutzy, or had a joke played on me, instead of shrinking away if others got a chuckle out of it. I recall an interview Robin Williams gave in which he described the gland that caused inhibitions/embarrassment being burned out in him, and others who could act outrageously on stage.

It does not matter. You are simply wrong, and it is known for 300 years by now. You have nothing to show for and there is a pile of arguments against your guess. It does not fit a definition of Speculation by the rules of these forums. IMO, this thread is to be closed.

Wrong guess. Mathematics does not seem to be your thing, lets look for something else that may suit your style of conversation. Ok, Lets use emojis. 🍏🌐🎯 🌐🍏❌