Leaderboard

“what makes this fee revolutionary is that it will apply to emissions that don’t happen on European soil. The EU already puts a price on many of the emissions created by European firms; now, through the new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM, the bloc will charge companies that import the targeted products — cement, aluminum, electricity, fertilizer, hydrogen, iron and steel — into the EU, no matter where in the world those products are made.” https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/food-environment/2024/big-boost-europe-carbon-neutral-goals-cbam This removes incentives to move carbon-intensive industry out of the EU, since that won’t sidestep tariffs any longer. The tariff accounting includes the electricity used for production, so there’s an incentive for business exporting to the EU to use green energy

This is a multi-step exercise. It would be very helpful if somebody could check my step(s) as I go. @joigus, I'm sure it is a child play for you. I'd like to make sure that I've derived correctly the equation of motion for this Lagrangian: \[\mathcal L=- \frac 1 2 \phi \Box \phi + \frac 1 2 m^2 \phi^2 - \frac {\lambda} {4!} \phi^4\] The EL equation: \[\frac {\partial \mathcal L} {\partial \phi} + \Box \frac {\partial \mathcal L} {\partial (\Box \phi)} = 0\] The equation of motion: \[\Box \phi - \frac 1 2 m^2 + \frac {\lambda} {3!} \phi^3 = 0\] How is it? P.S. As edit LaTex does not work, I add a typo correction here. The equation of motion is rather \[\Box \phi - m^2 \phi + \frac {\lambda} {3!} \phi^3 = 0\]

Your eq. of motion (once corrected) looks fine. Most people prefer to write (1/2)(grad)phi(grad)phi instead of -(1/2)phi(grad)2phi, but they differ in just a total divergence, so they are equivalent (lead to the same equations of motion). By grad2 I mean the D'Alembert operator. I'll check in more detail later, I would have to do it in my head now and I could miss a sign. This is a famous equation.

Since there are 10⁶ ml in one litre of water, there are 10⁵ml in one dL. Equating 1mg with 1ml is only valid for substances with a density of 1g/ml (or 1000kg/m³ in SI units). So-called "cholesterol" in blood is not in fact the chemical substance cholesterol, but particles made up of a range of substances including fatty acids, esterified and unesterified cholesterol, proteins etc. From what I can find on the web, these particles have densities ranging from approx 1.05-1.2g/ml. (Blood plasma has a density of 1.006g/ml , apparently.) The chart I found is this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95451-3/figures/1 Whether these differences in density are significant or not in the context of your enquiry I do not know.

Yeah and only adjusted for similar positions. In some of the lawsuits specifically the lack of advancement was criticized, so there is a bit of an open question that is not clearly addressed in that snippet. But yeah it is a perception isn't it? If if the balance is in favour of the dominant group, others have just to work harder to catch up. But if the balance does not do a hard break at parity, then the world is collapsing.

“we” Do you represent Microsoft? Can you provide a link? edit: nvm, I did your work for you https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/11/01/microsofts-2023-diversity-and-inclusion-report-a-decade-of-transparency-commitment-and-progress/ “Inside the U.S., all racial and ethnic minority groups who are rewards-eligible combined earn $1.007 total pay for every $1.000 earned by U.S. rewards-eligible white employees with the same job title and level and considering tenure.” There’s a bit to unpack here. rewards-eligible presumably means performance-based awards, meaning that ethnic minorities could have just earned a smidgin more in bonuses by doing more and/or better work. Their base pay could even be less, and bonuses just more than make up the difference. No smoking gun of discrimination there. “same job title and level and considering tenure” does not preclude the possibility that more white workers have been promoted, leaving the mediocre performers behind, while the better-performing minorities are passed over. It doesn’t mean this is the case - it means we don’t have enough data to evaluate the situation. But see the above comment about bonuses. Manufactured outrage.

Has anyone done this joke yet?

..and I would say that your answer is primitive and childish.. ..only for the foolish who started everything from the Bible and took it literally.. Such an interpretation is too easy to mock, simply by saying that there was not enough time to create a stone from the bones of, for example, dinosaurs in the "calculated" time of life on Earth.. ..then who made up the Universe.. ?

I'd say god is pretty ugly if it looks like any blastocyst....