Leaderboard

Built a chessboard for my daughters. Walnut and maple. Half lap joints held by pegs for the corners. Pleased with how it’s turned out

IIRC, A Lincoln's words identified slaves, not black people, to be freed, while there were many whites who participated in the underground railroad to bring slaves to freedom. The act of targeting a group was wrong when slavery was established, and can be argued to be wrong when those same methods are used to correct the original wrong. Do we murder murderers ? Do we take possessions away from thieves ? When is 'an eye for an eye' ever a good policy ?

[irony] Thank you teacher for marking my homework correct [/irony] I didn't say any of that. That is all your conjecture. Further I have no idea whether you understood what I said. In particular note the examples you have provided in the other threads are 2 dimensional, in which case the physical dimension reduces to the reciprocal of length. This is a far cry from volume, and is usually called wave number when dealing with waves. By the way this jumping about between threads discussing essentially the same subject is very wearing. If you wish to communicate (your ideas) with physicists it would be a good idea to learn some of the basics of the subject and language. It has taken a lot of great minds over many thousands of year to reach the stage of technology we now enjoy. During that process many ideas have been proposed and worried over doglike with a bone. quite a few of these, at firts promising, were finally rejected as unworkable or not in conformity with observation. So it is pointless and futile to try to invent all your own Physics by yourself. Start with what is already known, tried and tested, and move outwards and onwards from there. A simple observation, but so true in this case and such a good example of what I mean by my advice. It also provides a reminder to me to be more specific and accurate. Thanks, swansont. +1

What are some of the barriers to providing equal opportunity to every one, within academia? Seeing a lot of ignorant and entitled posting lately, which doesn't even make a point to address this. It's a shame really, a lot of discouraging and disparaging comments being made about people, who through no fault of their own, simply are not offered the sort of education their disparagers have allegedly had and have no means of getting it.

And that is a big fallacy right here. Grades correlate with academic success, but not nearly as good as, say income. School districts explain more of the variation in grades than individual difference. I.e. grading is not an objective measure of performance, but rather select for folks who can afford the best preparation and schools. So if you use scores, you are in fact using a proxy for income (what you explicitly said you did not want to do). This, again is a failure of the system which creates in us the the belief that we are fair, while having a system in place that decidedly is not. I will note the graduate level however, things get shaken up a bit. I have found that scores are not a great indicator of individual performance anymore.

How would you test this, and/or what evidence shows this exclusive of mainstream physics? How is disappearing and reappearing in a different place being “fixed” and not motion?

@Kartazion. Here's the point. Apparently you're clueless. Your question ( \( Q \) ), rests on a notion. Let's call that notion \( W \), \( Q = \) Can science prove the existence of an intelligent world that rules our universe? \( W = \) an intelligent world Now, let's introduce another notion, equally arbitrary: \( W' = \) 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but which communicate so as to generate a meta-intelligence (An intelligence that cannot be achieved by any of them, but by their mutual cooperation: Mind you, cells are stupid, but they manage to produce intelligence in a brain, so the analogy is not that far-fetched.) Let's establish an isomorphism \( \varPhi \): \[\varPhi\left(W\right)=W'\] \[\varPhi\left(Q\left(W\right)\right)=\left(Q\left(\varPhi\left(W\right)\right)\right)=Q\left(W'\right)\] IOW, my question is your question disguised under an isomorphism. And I don't know how "stupid" it is. But it's your question. --yawn.

More specifically, the tires are already worn asymmetrically on one side. A simple alignment won’t remove the laterally biased wear. They’ll still be more worn more on one side even after the alignment gets done. To rebalance the wear on the tire, you need to overcorrect for a while and intentionally over-wear the other side for a bit... all with the knowledge that this overcorrection is only temporary until the wear is again balanced across the entire tire.

Yes the lack of a rigorous definition is a problem. I certainly can’t define it mathematically. If I say, “…while there is a lightning bolt…”—what does that mean? What is this “while” business? I can’t say “at the same time” because that brings us right back to what you noted about the strikes both occurring at a shared tx point in only one frame. I guess what I’m trying to point to when I say, “coexisting events” is something that cannot be confirmed to be the case for two events distanced from one another in Einstein’s thought experiment due to the limiting velocity of information. You would have to collapse the interval between the event itself and the event of its observation which would require some form of information transmission of infinite velocity—impossible. So if I ask the question: “Is there some definite fact of the matter regarding Einstein’s bolts of lightning quite apart from the “time order” in which they are deemed to occur in different frames of reference according to the time of physics?” What would this fact be and how would I find it out? Apart from a mathematical definition, the only thing I can come up with involves information transmission that “belongs” to a given frame of reference. So if, along with the mirrors “inclined at 90 degrees” which Einstein allotted, we equipped both observer M on the embankment and observer M1 on the train with two light bulbs connected to transformers connected to two electrodes that “coincide” with the two bolts of lightning, then both M and M1 would see the bulbs next to them light up “at the same time”. Yet, relying on the reflected light from the mirrors, M1 would reach a different conclusion. Both forms of information transmission (EM energy wave along reference-frame wire and light wave through the air) seem to point to something different. It’s this “something different” I’m trying to get a grip on.

Ok, that means my answer above does not apply. I answered regarding the code you actually posted together with the initial question. Please answer: Which debugger have you tried? Please answer: Provide a source where the code comes from. edit: found it*: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55042/how-can-i-program-a-simple-chat-bot-ai/55053. end of edit. Emphasis mine: That code contains a=open('lexicon-luke','rb') Which seems to rely on the other program that dumps the content into the file: a=open('lexicon-luke','wb') pickle.dump(follow,a,2) Running the programs in the order you describe is probably not what the author intended. The "trainer" needs to run before the "bot". I think you need to clarify the questions and what kind of help you require. *) There are other locations, some full of spam stuff, I choose not to link to any those.

Not quite, CharonY. I'm trying to explain ( to the best of my ability ), that even for a just cause, sorting/selecting according to racial traits is using 'racism'. The fact that we are willing to use 'race' to discriminate between people, when we consider the cause just, means we will discriminate using 'race' when another cause comes along that we consider just. Just, is simply a moral justification for doing/saying something. As their livelihood depended on slavery, I'm sure the Confederate States though discriminating according to 'race' was just. I'm saying sorting/discriminating according to 'race' is a bad thing, Zap. For one thing, there is only one race, so you are actually sorting/discriminating according to group traits. The fact that this bad thing can be used to do even worse things like subjugate, enslave or even commit genocide, seems like a good reason not to use it at all.

! Moderator Note You need to post a news link, along with a more complete summary, rather than almost-naked youtube channel links, which violates rule 2.7 You've been told this before. Do it again and we will just assume you're a spammer. Something like https://www.techexplorist.com/single-molecule-electret-keys-molecular-computers/35727/ The important thing in this is that it shows you can create in a molecule two states that cause spontaneous polarization and two switchable states. And this can give people ideas that maybe you can shrink memory down literally to the single molecular level. Now that we understand that we can do that, we can move on to do more interesting things with it.

Can I take offense to that? I'm in that last demographic. I don't feel offended at all really, but reductio ad absurdum is fun. That's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from one of you Z people, he said in mock offense. Yet actions are also based on morality. I'm glad you brought up antagonism. Let's say the killing of George Floyd was an antagonistic act, which it probably was whether racist intent comes into play or not. Were the protests and at times riots that happened afterward also antagonistic or were they reactionary to a prior antagonism? I actually much prefer talking about class but then maybe that is because talking about race makes us all feel uncomfortable. I think we can all acknowledge here that racism does in fact exist and it is a major problem and can be a barrier to education, for everyone. As it can be a barrier to financial security. When we are talking about discrimination, there are two kinds worth mentioning. Implicit and explicit. When we discuss racism, we are discussing racial in-group biases specifically. This I feel, is where a lot of misunderstanding and poor use of language on both sides can make things a lot worse. We as a species have a habit of forming a dynamic multiplicity of in-group biases, implicitly and explicitly. What this means in legal terms, is that bias is a cause of the act of discrimination. It can be implicit or explicit, direct or indirect. To me, this means that not all who are guilty of racial discrimination or any other form of discrimination, are guilty of malicious prejudice or racism. Every human has biases to overcome and it is no easy thing, as it means admitting that you are flawed. Some people would rather die than face the truth that they or someone they idolise, can in fact be flawed. The best way to think about affirmative action, is to consider the social model of disability, wherein people are viewed as disabled by external environment. This means that with reasonable adjustments, a disabled person can be made just as able as everyone else. Affirmative action is just recognising the disparities between social mobility between different groups and building a ramp to those that need a ramp instead of making them walk upstairs. At least that is what affirmative action should be like, the ramp comparison isn't meant to call anyone disabled because of their colour and is just a metaphor. Now, one concept that is often discussed within education is the idea of universally inclusive and beneficial, structural changes to the learning experience and environment. Universal enrichment. An example of this can be anything from a ramp, to an app that teaches kids facial expressions, originally designed for autistic children but found to also be a useful tool for teaching their peers about body language in universally inclusive classrooms. One of the current barriers where class is concerned, is internet access. Due to covid, online learning is completely inaccessible to the poorest households. So maybe we should move on from race and discuss the financial and logistical barriers that does not currently allow for their to be a good quality education for everyone who wants one. I think we can probably all agree, that a world where there is a good quality education, available to everyone who wants one, is something that would eliminate the need for affirmative action in the first place. Even where higher education is subsidised or "free" like in Scotland, there are only so many places on every course offered by colleges and universities. Of those courses, not all of them are universally inclusive in setting, format, method, philosophy or individual staffing choices. At this point I'm probably rambling but this is something that really matters to me. It's extremely important to have discussions like these where we state an ideal, and ask how we can achieve it. What does the ideal school system look like and how do we get closer to that ideal?

I have removed the beginning and end square brackets to show the coding. math]\sum\limits_{n = a}^{n = b} {{n^2}} [/math [math]\sum\limits_{n = a}^{n = b} {{n^2}} [/math] math]\sum\nolimits_{n = a}^{n = b} {{n^2}} [/math [math]\sum\nolimits_{n = a}^{n = b} {{n^2}} [/math]

I've long taken personal exception to the under-representation of old, bald, white men, with questionable bladder control amongst Olympic athletes.

Reflect on this and grant us the mercy of your own self-reflection. You may or may not have found god, but you have not found the way. Peace and blessings to you, Duolingo might help you explain yourself more clearly. Right now, I don't think you are saying what you want to mean.

Fair comment, but coexist does not normally mean "coexist in spacetime". Generally speaking, I think they are somewhat interchangeable with "simultaneously" being more specific. As a somewhat counter example...your same example...no one would claim they ever coexisted without that context modifier "in spacetime". They would normally be an example of things that did not coexist. As you essentially pointed out, there is no frame they could coexist in or be simultaneous in, notwithstanding they both exist in spacetime.

Woodworking and other hobbies that involve building things is how I manage to keep what little sanity I have left. I'm not really good at most of them but it's the effort that gives me release. The idea of conceiving an idea then drawing it and finally building it gives me a lot of pleasure..

-1 for the dishonestly quoting joigus, reported to boot since this is a violation of site rules. Really bad form, kartazion!

@zapatos @joigus @Phi for All I don't know what you're talking about. Apparently the rhetoric you allude to, and that you thought you saw, is completely absurd and does not hold up. Look, I reiterate with a simple definition in bold: These are your words which are stupid. It's a total ineptitude to ask that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe.