Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/24/22 in all areas

  1. We instituted a version of a safe zone in my household when my children were too young to drink. Coming home drunk was a violation of our rules, but if my kids were out with the car and under the influence, they could call home for a ride, 24 hours a day, with zero retribution for drinking. I was willing to accept law breaking and rule breaking if it meant saving them from harm. I suspect people who aren't willing to accept safe zones for drug use among strangers will usually feel differently if it is a loved one whose life is at risk.
    5 points
  2. Putin dies and goes to hell, but after a while, he is given a day off for good behavior. So he goes to Moscow, enters a bar, orders a drink, and asks the bartender: -Is Crimea ours? -Yes, it is. -And the Donbas? -Also ours. -And Kyiv? -We got that too. Satisfied, Putin drinks, and asks: -Thanks, how much do I owe you? -5 euros.
    5 points
  3. Well, beecee, I hope you are doing well in your followup crusade against philosophy. I find it interesting that you, Krauss, Degrasse Tyson are heavily critisising philosophy, where it is clear to me that you and your scientific heroes have no idea what is actually done in modern academic philosophy. Don't understand me wrong: I have read several books of Krauss, and these are great in explaining modern physics and astronomy for the lay people; and I extremely like the Degrasse Tyson's work in the public understanding of science. However I also recognise without a shadow of doubt that they are fighting a straw man here: philosophy as it was thousands years ago, or hundred years ago. Should I condemn physics as stupid because Aristotle said that F = mv? 2500 years ago? Or astronomers that thought the cosmos is static and exist just out of the stars we see in the Milky Way, not much more than 100 years ago? Of course not, but that is exactly what you are doing when they, and you, are critisising philosophy: as if philosophy has not progressed in those thousands or most recent 100 years (Russel, anybody?). If you say that philosophy has still no answers to the most fundamental questions it asks since thousands of years, then I can only react that physics and astronomy have not either. True, we know much more, and cosmologists can describe the history of the universe until about 10⁻²³ seconds, but the original question 'where everything comes from' is not answered. Even Krauss does not know the answer. So if you would say, e.g., that philosophy still has not answered the thousands of years old question if we have free will, I would say 'maybe not, but we understand the problem much better'. The same as in cosmology: we understand much more about the origins of the universe, but we do not have the definitive answer. You are using different critera for the progress of science and philosophy. In trying to understand and accept the present scientific difficulties in answering this question, one is, eh... philosophising. Thereby: every science has its philosophical assumptions. See my present disclaimer ('There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.') Grappling with these assumptions is philosophy (at least of one of its subdisciplines). Doing unfounded assertions about philosophy is just bad philosophy. (Yes, when a scientist reflects about the status of his science, he is doing philosophy, not science.) Feynman shows a nice example of the ambiguity of scientists about philosophy: on one side, he finds it completely useless ("What is 'talking'"), on the other side you have his reaction on the question of what magnetism 'really' is (I think even you have shared the youtube of that interview here in these fora); there he is clearly taken a well argued philosophical stance, i.e. he is philosophising. Recently I have been reading What is real? The unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics by Adam Becker (Astrophysicist and philosopher). Its historical description shows clearly how heavily influenced the discussions between the 'quantum pioneers' by philosophical stances, and when it is about quantum fundamentals, it still is. With that it also shows clearly how important history of science and philosophy of science are, even for physicists. E.g. it shows how devastating the 'Copenhagen creed' was for an open discussion on the fundamentals of quantum physics, even so much, that you could forget your career, if you showed interest in fundamental questions (e.g. John Bell, working at CERN, helping in calculations for its accellerator/collider, but 'doing work on fundamentals on Sundays' Bell's theorem belongs to this 'Sunday's work'; he even warned Alain Aspect not to strive for doing entanglement experiments, unless he was tenured, (which he luckily was)). Read this book, maybe you get a bit more respect for philosophy and history of science. You will also see that the author himself is not the only one that has both studied physics and philosophy (often in that chronological order). All less talented than Krauss? In cosmology, sure. In philosophy? Definitely not.
    3 points
  4. I would need to go through all of them again, but most of the time income as a measure is used. That being said, there are a few studies looking at wealth separate from income and overall it seems that income had a higher effect on improving health outcomes rather than incorporating wealth. An older study showed that African Americans had a 67% higher likelihood of dying than White Americans when accounting for age sex and marital status. Including wealth reduced it to 54% and introducing income (without wealth) the difference was "only" 43%. So while wealth and income attenuate issues, it clearly does not come close to closing it. The other observation in other studies is that whenever there is an economic downturn, black folks are more vulnerable to these effects. That is an interesting question, and there is no clear answer, mostly as universal health care system differ quite a lot. In Canada provincial differences are huge and depending on racial composition it could be difficult to compare national data. However, I do expect that with improved access much of the bigger issues we see in the US to be attenuated. A lot will also depend on the characteristics of the non-white population. In the US native black Americans fare much worse than recent black immigrants, for example. And in the UK and Canada, recent immigration of highly educated folks with high income would need to be separated out from these issues. That being said, there are still erroneous assumption and mistreatments in happening in universal health care system even fairly recently (forced or coerced sterilization, for example), but I would need to see what is out there in literature. I should also add that for about the last 10 years the medical community has become more aware of racial inequities and also has allowed more research in that area to happen. As such, practices are (slowly) changing relevant to racial disparities and I know that these conversations are also happening in Canada. I would need to take some time to find numbers but I will say that in order to uncover issues, it would be necessary to conduct research that actually tries to quantify inequities. As an anecdote, when I was doing more research looking at biomarkers of health, several of my proposals were shot down because the area I had collaborations with serviced more black folks. The reviewers contended that those were not representative of the majority white population and were therefore not of interest. I am moderately sure that today I had a much better show to have this cohort included. It depends on the definition of racism, and I think you might think of something else. Racism in this context is refers to a system that does something that somehow results in different outcomes, depending on your race. It may or may not have roots in some racists ideology and it really does not matter for this. Often, it is a mix. As I mentioned, wealth or income affect the outcome, but do not explain it sufficiently. Others include things like living in an area with little to know medical services or with underfunded schools or any of the dozen positive factors that even poor white folks have access to. The way to think about it is that we have a black box (the complete system that affects health) and if we put a white person in and a black person with same income wealth and so on, we get different outcomes. This is the issue with systemic racism. It is not about someone being shitty to someone or even someone thinks badly about a race. It is a system (such as a medical algorithm) that somehow and even inadvertently creates inequity, even if it was not designed to so. As such race-blind measures require at minimum non-race blind analyses to figure out whether they do create equity. Historically, we have been really bad at it. Of course, not political party in pretty much any country is free from blame. I am not sure why it seems to be a kind of revelation to you. The main difference I would say is that at least in recent times Dems try to say they are better than that whereas the GOP has weaponized racism to rally their base. So I think the way to look at it is that there is a weak hope that the Dems are willing to undo some of the harm they have done and the GOP is hellbent not to, as it seems to be their new identity fetish. Not sure, but the GOP has shown how powerful identity politics is. You can do whatever you want and lie the heck out of it and still escape repercussions. Meanwhile, Dems have to acknowledge that black folks exist lest they lose their elections.
    3 points
  5. Come on man, just because I was caught exposing my genitals to the Moon light before it was popular in conservative circles.
    3 points
  6. Every body appreciates the printed classics. A lot of the new printed stuff is garbage 🙂 . If you say so. Keep in mind that I mentioned two members who expressed a desire to re-purpose sports as 'games', and one of them has replied, and not objected to that characterization. Is that a 'strawman' ? I was not replying to you, I said 'some members', and then named them. I was not replying to an imaginary argument. So maybe by 'strawmanning' you mean someone doesn't share your worldview ?
    3 points
  7. Permanant dipoles are easy to explain. You have a molecule with partial +ve charge in one place and a partial -ve charge somewhere else. The partial +ve charge will attract a partial -ve charge in a neighbouring molecule and vice versa. So it's just like the attraction between oppositely charged ions but involving only partial charges. London forces, also known as dispersion forces, arise due to "flickering, fleeting dipoles" due to motion of the electrons in an atom or molecule, which induce dipoles in the neighbouring ones. The strength of dispersion forces is greater between atoms (or molecules involving them) that have greater polarisability, which tends to mean larger atoms with a more diffuse outermost shell of electrons. As I recall, the random fluctuations in electron density that give rise to this arise from the same quantum mechanical principle responsible for vacuum fluctuations - basically another manifestation of the uncertainty principle. The name Van der Waals forces is given to all intermolecular attractions that don't involve a chemical bond. So the term includes both London (dispersion) forces and the attraction between permanent dipoles. (But it would not include hydrogen bonds, as these have some directional bonding character and are thus not entirely electrostatic dipole attractions.)
    3 points
  8. Wow! ... bastards. Ukrainian intercept about that:
    3 points
  9. Society is only allowed to use the drug that you prefer?
    3 points
  10. I spent the middle third of my 60 years on mostly cannabis and amphetamines. The only time I've had black eyes or social strife is on excess alcohol. The saddest people I've ever seen are alcoholics by a wide margin, it knocks all the other drugs into the second division for the mess it causes. AFAIK one cannot safely withdraw from a full-on alcohol addiction without medical assistance... the physical addiction is real.... as I'm sure you know. Not sure about meth, but all the others are about a two week withdrawal for the physical side of the addiction. Obviously, the psychological side takes longer to overcome, but one is passed the physical aspect of the addiction after that time. Not so with barbiturates and alcohol. I've had many conversations with a UK Social Services substance misuse team, whose care I was under for a couple of years under a voluntary admission. Their sources are based on evidence.
    3 points
  11. No, the values are normalized, otherwise they would not make sense. Also, it is more of a rank score. They used multiple factors, such as mortality, dependence, impairment of cognitive functioning, etc. and the idea was to create scores that reflect their relative relationship to each other. I.e. a drug with double the mortality would receive double the score on that metric. For some, data are more lacking than others and also are shifting. Depending on what you look out for, cannabis has been shifting up and down over the years and depending on cohorts, for example. Long-term data are going to be quite interesting in that regard. That being said, certain harms could increase once the use increases. However, that is not always the case. For example, legalization of cannabis did increase hospitalizations in certain regions, but it was not an universal effect and the trend stabilized within a relatively short time frame. Conversely, if alcohol was not such an accepted social drug, harms, especially those to others, would be massively mitigated. These types of rankings are therefore somewhat tricky, but almost every way folks look at it, it is clear that the top spot belongs to alcohol by a fair margin.
    3 points
  12. No, I do not have a link. However, if you knew me even a little you would know that I have references. No, only if the ratio actually impact the outcome we are investigating. Otherwise you are biasing the analysis by assuming an advantage (after all this is the very question we want to establish in the first place). Especially if other factors, like, say the horse may be more important factors. So what you need to do before assuming that the advantage plays a role, you'll have to look whether the effect is present in the first place and also whether other, potentially more influential confounding factors are present. In other words, you are doing the exact mistake that many are criticizing. Without first establishing whether your factor has an actual effect you just assume it in all and demand that it has to be incorporated into the research design. And again, this is would be a classic example of bias in the study design. Rather, you would need to first figure out what factors influence race horse performance and then look whether gender is among those and how strong it really is, relative to the system we created around this assumption. For example if we have a huge gender difference, just looking at number of wins really only tells us about how many of each gender are participating, and not that whether is a physiological effect. If experience is a huge contributor and for whatever reason one gender does not stick around for the sport, it does not mean that there is a physiological reason either, and so on. So the challenge here is of course that a perfect data set would have exactly the same race conditions (including same horses) just with the gender swapped (and having an otherwise comparable cohort) in exactly the same races . Since there is not such a data set, one way to one needs to adjust external variables (i.e. physiology independent parameters) that may affect for example the likelihood of receiving higher rated mount (or being able to race at all). When adjusting for these factors the conclusion was that https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1527002520975839 Now there are other papers out there looking at the performance of the horse and the impact of the jockey. After all, the horse does the running. And here a fairly recent study suggest that the gender does of the rider does not seem to impact horse performance. In the same paper they also just calculated winning ratios based on UK and Australian data and here they found that in the UK the winning-rate (again, adjusted for the fact that fewer women are competing) to be not significantly different between men and women. In Australia there was a difference but which vanished if one considers the money spots (i.e. top three positions) in the races. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1341860/v1 So if the numbers do not immediately show a strong gender-based difference in outcome if one adjusts for the system (in contrast to sprinting, for example) why would one start off with the assumption of a difference and then try to frame the study from a flawed position? And this exactly is the issue with many of these assumptions. We know there are gender differences, but then we immediately jump to the conclusion they must be pervasive in everything we are looking for. And if we look with these blinders on, unsurprisingly we miss other aspects. This is one of the big reasons why there have been so many studies claiming to show that for some reasons folks with darker skin colour are less intellectual or that in general we only find the effects we are looking for (see the replication crisis) or why we have pervasive myths in the medical field. I.e. we first need to establish that there is an effect, then eliminate potential sources until we find the determining factors. In other words, we need to apply the scientific method also for those questions and should not start with a strong preconceptions.
    3 points
  13. To further clarify the point I didn't make very well earlier... By definition, conservatives tend to conserve and be somewhat averse to change, especially social change. Thus, I think the objections being raised by some about Biden's pre-selection announcement have something to do with the simple fact that we are progressing. Since conservatives tend to be somewhat averse to change they will often do a lot more analysis and questioning about all the trappings surrounding a change that is happening. When gay marriage was such a hotbed of debate, conservatives tended to question whether there could simply be a kind of 'separate but equal' arrangement, or whether or not gay marriage would 'destroy the sanctity of marriage', or why gay people couldn't take it slowly to let straight people get used to the idea over time. Progressives on the other hand were more inclined to simply say 'just let it be legal already!' And now that we've had gay marriage for a while, those concerns conservatives had no longer seem so significant to many. A more recent example is Hollywood's move to be more racially and culturally aware when choosing actors for a role. For example, not too distant arguments that you should pick the 'most qualified' candidate for the role regardless of skin color/culture were ignored, and very few people complained, when Steve Spielberg announced ahead of time that he would choose an Hispanic for the role of Maria in West Side Story. And just to show how important a qualification skin color was to Spielberg for the role, he chose Rachel Zegler, who had exactly two previous credits to her name, one of them being a podcast. Thus, I think that recent concerns raised regarding Biden's pre-announcement are part of the nature of the conservative mind, are part of the process we must go through as changes occur, and will not seem to be very important in the not too distant future. Similarly, I suspect that in the future conservatives will not be as concerned as they are today about trans-gender athletes, pronouns, politically correct language, and incandescent light bulbs.
    3 points
  14. What if when the first cars were invented, there was a collision between two cars and both gas tanks exploded and killed the people driving the cars? Was that an indicator that the internal combustion engine was unsafe and could never be useful in cars? No. Something like that may be going on with nuclear power. Just because the early nuclear reactors were not safe enough, does not mean that they will never be safe. Here are some ideas for safe nuclear reactors, thorium molten salt, and the Natrium reactor. Comments to this video: "Advantages of thorium: Much safer than uranium-no pressure vessel, no fuel rods to melt down. Much simpler reactor. Thorium salt liquid is pumped from the reactor tank through a heat exchanger and back into the tank. Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium--in fact so plentiful it is considered a waste product from rare earth mining. Thorium doesn't need expensive enriching to make it usable. Thorium is of little use for weapons. If power goes off, liquid simply drains into a pit which stops reaction. No fuel rods to cool or melt down if power fails. This technology has been around for years. Why was it not developed long ago? Politics, methinks." "I'm a retired nuclear engineer and have worked on nuclear fuel and safety aspects. In those early years in the 1980s, Thorium was not utilized in NPPs. But its potential was always recognized, and India's 3-stage strategy included Thorium utilization in stage-3. Hopefully, good progress has been made in the last 40 years and would not be surprised if Thorium bundles are loaded in the operating heavy water reactors." "...Thorium reactor, which is usually called Thorium battery, has already been used for decades in both US and USSR satellites to power satellites. It's not unknown. It's in fact well-known in aerospace field, but the knowledge of it has been closed for public by big energy engineering companies." "A good talk but he has a number of small errors. The two biggest are: --- Current nuclear reactors burn only 0.5 % of the U235, not a couple percent as he says. --- Thorium is about as common as Lead. We have enough Thorium on the planet Earth to power everyone for 100,000's of years. You can take ordinary dirt, and the trace amounts of Thorium are equal to 12 barrels of oil. Energy wise, we can burn the Thorium in ordinary dirt, and make an energy profit." "The reason we don't use Thorium for energy is because it can't be used for weapons and isn't rare enough to monopolize the market so it can be controlled by governments. It's cheap energy which means no one makes money which means those making money on energy right now which includes renewable energy are not going to support this energy source." "Recycling the nuclear waste is a must and very doable, France is currently doing just that. Nuclear waste holds 90% of energy still even after 5 years of use. Especially with electric cars becoming very popular it will put a huge strain on our current energy grid so nuclear plants will be a necessity sooner than later." I know the consensus here is probably opposed to ANY nuclear power, but renewables have bigger problems. France gets 71% of its' power from nuclear. Finland is spending billions of US dollars on a new nuclear reactor.
    2 points
  15. I think you two should just get a divorce already. You’re traumatizing the kids and neighbors with your bickering
    2 points
  16. I am totally open-minded, and there is nothing you can say to change that.
    2 points
  17. My understanding is it’s related to asymptotic freedom. When you add energy to a “typical” bound system (e.g. ionize an electron) you end up with free particles. When they combine, you get a release of energy. But adding energy to bound quarks doesn’t do this - you can’t free a bound quark. Their potential energy at large separation doesn’t go to zero as it does with gravity or Coulomb forces.
    2 points
  18. This is all part of the modern phenomenon of re-defining words to suit an agenda. Republicans are trying to re-define 'progressivism' as something bad; as simply change for the sake of change, or change to a worse outcome. Most people ( who don't watch Fox News ) know that is politically driven, and it actually refers to the improvement of the human condition.. I would also suggest the term 'populism', has been re-defined by a liberal agenda, to mean something just short of fascism, while in effect it means a government serving the needs, and representing all the people, including commoners; not simply the elite affluent/intelligentsia, who don't necessarily believe the 'commoners' deserve representation.
    2 points
  19. That's technical analysis. It's bullshit. The stock doesn't know what it did yesterday any more than a coin knows what it did in the last 50 flips. However, it's still rational to know a little about it, because so many other players believe in it! You need to know what the chart watchers are thinking in order to make your own moves. It's rational to pay attention to the irrational beliefs of others. Strange but true.
    2 points
  20. Me too. I'm no more than a hobby geologist but it has been a somewhat obsessive fascination since I was about 8! (a very long time ago) One observation that strongly colours my view of this topic is that it must square with not only the surface geology we see around us, but also a very long term gradual trend of oxidation from the global reducing conditions of the earliest times due to photosynthesis. The banded iron formations around the world record oxygen fugacity being controlled by the oxidation of oceanic Fe II to Fe III in the Archean. And to this day, there is still an iron oxidation front controlling oxygen fugacity - called the FMQ (fayalite-magnetite-quartz) redox buffer - now deep within the earth's crust. 3Fe2SiO4 + O2 = 2Fe3O4 + 3SiO2 Compare this with @exchemist's serpentisation reaction 1a) 3Fe2SiO4 + 2H2O → 2Fe3O4 + 3SiO2 + 2H2 ... which can proceed when FMQ has exhausted all the free silica in its environment, and water becomes the favoured source of oxygen. I'm all too aware that this picture is simplistic in the extreme, and maybe the second reaction is not favoured at some key limiting temperature, but it does raise a question in my mind about the stability of water in the low silica reducing environments found at depth. Or perhaps I'm completely off-track, and the ocean is busy converting the lower mantle to topaz!
    2 points
  21. Interesting. It seems to have quite a lot in common with the Dead Sea. Though I'm not sure whether there are geothermal springs there. What I also found interesting was to read that much of the world's lithium for batteries comes from a spodumene mine in Australia. Spodumene, apparently, is an igneous pyroxene mineral with formula LiAl(SiO3)2, (i.e. 2 silicate tetrahedra with one shared edge). Other sources - or potential sources - are brines in Chile, Bolivia and Argentina. So at least the world is not currently dependent on China or Russia for it. Furthermore it occurred to me that perhaps it could be a good mineral money-spinner for Australia, which might help some of their (numerous) dinosaur politicians to get their heads round the need to stop extracting coal. But more diversified sources would certainly seem prudent, given the difficulty in replacing Li in battery technology. Li seems unique in this role. I imagine this will be due to the small size of the Li+ ion (only the 1s shell is filled) allowing it to form intercalated compounds with carbon, CoO2 etc, reversibly.
    2 points
  22. It was beautiful. All other horses suddenly look so slow...
    2 points
  23. Yes, regulation. But cars are not banned, lest we crash them; working in scaffolding and towers are not banned, lest we fall off, and fireplaces and stoves are not banned, lest we burn our homes down. And we do all those things: drive carelessly, build and work carelessly, heat and cook carelessly. Accidents do happen, because nobody can force us to be sensible. Government can only try to minimize the damage we do to ourselves. And that's all legalization of drugs is meant to accomplish: make regulation possible; re-allocate the money from the futile attempt at prevention of the cause to mitigation of the effects.
    2 points
  24. Concerning cannabis addiction: Note the paper says it relates to persons with ten years of continuous use. If you do anything for ten years everyday, you will be very likely automatically compelled to perform that action. Personal commitment and guided behavioural modification can alter that compulsive routine people call 'addiction'. Not by any stretch of the imagination does cannabis dig as deep a hole physically and mentally as alcohol. Concerning the "increasing potency" of modern cannabis strains: In terms of effects, increasing Delta-9 THC content on its own doesn't necessarily correlate with greater intoxication. It's actually down to several compounds acting synergistically to modulate its effects. You can get 10% THC strains that are much stronger in effect than one measured at 30% simply because the latter lacks or has less of the synergistic components of the former. Its just a way for breeders and sellers to relieve people of more money.... those numbers matter commercially and for some consumers it's a rainbow to chase. The % of THC does not correlate in experienced potency like the ABV of alcohol does.
    2 points
  25. Anything's better than being a Boltzmann Brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
    2 points
  26. That's a good theory. We tried it, in several areas we thought our kids might need guidance. Come 13, they tend to shut down: don't want to be seen with you in public, don't want you to know how they feel, don't eat what you pack in their lunch, don't ask you any questions, slam doors if you ask any. You retaliate with various stratagems that seem clever at the time and that make you cringe in retrospect. In between skirmishes, you can have hilarious family dinners and pleasant evenings of entertainment or homework mentoring, then hostilities resume. The best-laid plans of mice and parents oft go up the generation gap.
    2 points
  27. One question you should be asking yourselves. And we won't even consider abusers, but if you have a son or daughter, how happy would you be if he/she had the occasional alcoholic drink, or burned an occasional joint, or did an occasional line of coke, occasionally smoking crack or crystal meth, or even injecting heroin every once in a while. Does the idea of your son/daughter doing some of the above, stress you out a hell of a lot more than the first two ? And, if you found your son/daughter with a needle stuck in their arm, would you say that it was all-right since prohibition wasn't working anyway ? If it does, ask yourself "why ?", and then apply the resulting answer to the question of making it legal for everyone's son and daughter. Call up from the basement, Dim, and ask your mom if she's happy with you making the house smell 'skunky' all day and night. ( yes, that was a dig )
    2 points
  28. Nobody is saying that it is harmless, and mention of medical benefits is an irrelevant distraction. It is not a supporting factor for recreational use or a means to lessen perceived harm. It has harms, but the social, medical and financial burden of recreational cannabis use pales in comparison to alcohol.
    2 points
  29. Meanwhile, even before legalization cannabis-related crimes were mostly related to possession and import. After legalization obviously those rates dropped. While impaired driving under drug but no alcohol influence increased a bit, it is still only 8% of the rate of alcohol-related impaired driving. And in contrast to alcohol there are no robust associations with violence or other crimes connected to cannabis. I.e. if one wanted to allow only one drug, it would be safer to keep cannabis and ditch alcohol. This is likely also going to be the case for things like psilocybin. It is clear that the case for legalizing only alcohol is not (entirely) based on risk, public health or similar assessments.
    2 points
  30. You can stick your pity in your bum.
    2 points
  31. Let it be. Very dangerous, if not right Equipment and stabilizers are used. Increasing of concentration will end up with explosions. Its safer and cheaper to buy 32% H2O2 and dilute down to 24%.
    2 points
  32. Directly proportional implies a linear relationship between two variables. If you double the one variable, the other doubles. If you triple it, the other variable also triples. And so on ... For F=ma,you have three variables, and the correct reading is Force and acceleration are directly proportional when mass is constant. IOW, it would not work for a rocket which changes mass as it expels fuel. Nor would it work in relativistic situations.
    2 points
  33. How's this for tidal effects.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_Falls The Horizontal Falls, or Horizontal Waterfalls, nicknamed the "Horries" and known as Garaanngaddim to the local Indigenous people, are an unusual natural phenomenon on the coast of the Kimberley region in Western Australia, where tidal flows cause waterfalls on the ebb and flow of each tide. The Lalang-garram / Horizontal Falls Marine Park is a protected area covering the falls and wider area.
    2 points
  34. The real reasons that the Evangelicals took up the anti abortion banner and made it their hot button issue.... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
    2 points
  35. I subscribe to several feeds and trusted aggregators. I have a focus on science, politics, economics, and business. Used to use google reader but now use Feedly. Mostly I read and mostly it comes to me. I follow up on articles that interest me and seek other views. I subscribe also to multiple daily newsletters from multiple different sources, as well as multiple different podcasts, many daily some weekly. I try to watch all of the Sunday shows weekly and pbs newshour daily. I listen to NPR when in the car and all caught up on my copious podcasts. I watch frontline and 60 minutes and other similar film based news overview programs, too. I don’t have cable and don’t go to their websites. I don’t follow everything, but know how to find good sources that are trustworthy and am a very informed citizen.
    2 points
  36. Let me repeat a previous post. OK so to continue with the Mathematics, though Euler also had much to do with applied maths. Princeton University has been home to some of the greatest geniuses in History. They also have a small publishing house which publishes specialist topic books, most of which become standards in their field (see another use of the word field ?). I am recommending one about Euler and his constant, gamma to you as you should find much of interest in it. Most of the book is lightly mathematical to be more generally accessible but read the introduction here and see what you think. Gamma - Exploring Euler's Constant Julian Havil - Princeton University Press 2003 & 2021
    2 points
  37. 😊 I also have that rather pleasant affinity with dogs. Children of course need to be supervised with dogs of all sizes and breeds. I have a habit of approaching nearly all dogs I see, walking with their owners, or out by themselves. As I am confident you already know, you never approach a strange dog with an arm outstretched and open hand...that may appear threatening. Always approach them with your hand closed slightly showing the dog the back of your hand and offer it to them to smell. WRONG: CORRECT: Other worthwhile tips are (1) if the dog has eyes wide opened appearing concerned and/or worried, let it be. (2) If the tail is tucked between his legs also a sign of nervousness by the dog. (3) Always approach with the hand as shown, slowly. then (4) allow the dog to take the last step or so to sniff your hand. (5) Get as close down to the dog's level as is possible. Also I failed to mention the more obvious...If the hair on the dog's back is raised, or if it is showing its teeth...these are warning signs!
    2 points
  38. Nah. Already made my point clearly with those already shared. I’m not targeting perfection, just understanding. A*theist. Literally means not*theist, and theism is specifically about belief in god or gods. Religion and ritual more broadly may get lumped into this by some speakers, but those speakers do so inaccurately. the·ist noun a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. adjective denoting or relating to belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Since you appreciate perfection in analogies, you should equally appreciate perfection in definitions, and here that lays with Zapatos’ position.
    2 points
  39. If you guys think you can bring up who's the most modest around here without mentioning me I humbly ask you to think again.
    2 points
  40. They also hit residential buildings. Fuck you and everyone who thinks attacking sovereign countries unprovoked and killing civilians and children and pregnant women and everyone indiscriminately is funny.
    2 points
  41. Whenever a theist around here questions what atheists believe, of if they believe gods don't exist, the usual response of the membership is to say something along the lines of "atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods, no more, no less". So while you, Phi and others may have your own personal beliefs (sort of like most theists do), I am of the opinion that strictly speaking there is no contradiction in an atheist believing in or practicing religion, as long as they don't believe in the existence of a god or gods.
    2 points
  42. Just to add "cautionary tales of evolution" to what @Phi for All said, The male praying mantis is, in terms of evolution, very successful. Yet, he does it by providing the female with a delicious romantic dinner after sex in which he is the main and only course. Think about the implications of this. Evolution only cares about reproductive success. Doing well for yourself doesn't necessarily matter so much. Fig wasps are an even more extreme example. There are more examples of reproductive champion = individual loser in Nature. In tournament species, successful males are tipically short-lived.
    2 points
  43. France and Germany are also in close proximity toward each other. Doesn't mean one gets to dictate toward the other how the others language works. Whether or not PoC or coloured is an acceptable term to use, is off topic. It offends me that when you use it, you leave out the U in coloured but I didn't come down on you for that. It is also outrage via proxy. MigL isn't the problem when it comes to racism. He's an older dude, he has biases sure but I dont think he means anything offensive when he describes a black person as coloured. I think in general this is one of the problems people have with PC culture. Most of the effort goes into forcing accountability on the people committing the least of offenses as opposed to forcing it onto the people who truly embrace racist and supremacy type ideologies and go on to commit crimes. Ultimately I understand what it is all in aid of and what it is for, but there needs to be room for us to be critical of the ways and means, if for no other reason than making real progress. I mean if we are going to come down on older Canadians for using the term coloured, why not come down on Spanish speakers when they say this "tomaré un café negro"? I don't know, maybe you could try to explain exactly why the term is not appropriate. By that I mean, why is it considered a pejorative term now? Keeping in mind I'm asking that even though I don't use the word in that context myself, and that on the KBJ "pre-announcement" issue we are in total agreement with each other. Wait until you hear someone go to a butchers and ask for some "faggots". Which is literally also a meat product in the UK. Tom Stade, an American comedian does a bit on that. Pointing out that in the US you can't say that and you certainly can't have a bag full of them either. Ahhh linguistics ngl I love this subject and hope we can all have a calm, open minded discussion about language. Fair enough. I'll leave that alone. But they do contain different languages, dialects and cultural attitudes and differences. Not even with just national borders but within county, state and regional borders. If it ought to all be one way, who decides which way? Suspicion of malice gone. I know you did not intend it now. I take that back. What do you mean by "essentially everyone?" It's also not happening near your front door. It's a different country, with different laws, languages and dialects of English. Where I'm from, I could call you and MigL a Sound Cunt. And it would be a good thing. A sound cunt is a good cunt. Cunt also means buttocks in Dutch. Now, if we are talking about crimes of moral turpitude, then I'm with you 100%. Vague and unexplained differences in language use and whether or not a certain word is okay to use and where, those don't veer into moral turpitude territory. Murder and rape are illegal in both places. Free speech isn't. If it is a pejorative term with truly harming consequences for the black community, then you need to explain how and why.
    2 points
  44. Whataboutist arguments are hollow and feeble, especially this one. You're basically saying, "Better the devil you know...". Are devils all that Russia has to offer its people?
    2 points
  45. Without getting too far into the assertions made here or elsewhere about AGW, I will say that precise definitions matter greatly if we don't want threads that decay into trollery. The phrase existential threat is a shining example of imprecision. If a conservative uses it to caricature a moderate/liberal position, they may use it to mean complete extinction event, no humans left. This, most climatologists and ecologists agree, is not likely to happen, so the conservative feels they score a point. However, if their interlocutor said existential threat and meant something more like vast social disruption, widespread crop failure and famine especially in the tropics, many deaths from wet bulb temps over 35 C in tropical regions where AC is not widely available, massive wildfires, massive coastal flooding in areas of high population density then they are speaking of threats quite real and not too distant. And quite existential for those most vulnerable by virtue of geography and lack of resources. So any discussion must determine first what such terms mean, and find common definitions. And that can only happen when politics, and wearing team jerseys, is put aside.
    2 points
  46. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/254896-a-panda-walks-into-a-cafe-he-orders-a-sandwich A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. "Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife annual and tosses it over his shoulder. "I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation. Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.
    2 points
  47. I assume you've got the correct four meanings... Yes, It works in Dutch too.
    2 points
  48. In about year 1400, Geoffrey Chaucer - yes, the poet - wrote a step-by-step guide, A Treatise on the Astrolabe, where he described in a clear, technical prose the use of the instrument, to his 10 years old son! A Treatise on the Astrolabe (chirurgeon.org)
    2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.