exchemist

I share your fears. I am no longer confident the Supreme Court (or should that be Chicken?) is effective any longer. They have been due for weeks now to issue their judgement on whether or not Trump's tariffs are constitutional. I think they know damned well they are not, but are afraid to issue the judgement because of the damage that would do to Trump and his administration, both internationally and domestically (unwinding illegal tariffs would involve compensating the affected importers). In any case, the enforcing of court orders requires in the last resort the use of the US Marshals........which is an agency reporting to a certain Pam Bondi. So good luck with that, if and when a showdown with the courts arises. It also looks as if the role of ICE is gradually being expanded beyond its original remit of rounding up illegal immigrants. I note in particular the alarming presence of ICE to provide protection to Vance during his attendance at the Winter Olympics, in Italy. WTF? They seem to be morphing into a new arm of state security, outside the systems, controls - and training - of the normal security services and answerable to no one. They have already established a reputation for killing citizens with impunity. So the fear factor is being ramped up. What next? Brown shirts and diagonal leather straps across the chests?

I have never understood how this can work at scale. It seems to me the mass of such weights cannot remotely compare with the mass of water that can be given extra gravitational potential energy by a couple of reversible pump/turbines in the space of a few hours. I think, though, I would expect the losses to be lower than with pumped storage, as there won't be losses to turbulence and "slippage" through the turbine. It will be just a matter of the efficiency of the electric motor/generator running in forward and reverse directions, which you also have in a pumped storage setup.

1960s special effects were pretty primitive.

Indeed. I don't know how diagnostic AI works but I imagine it may look for patterns in the data: X-ray pictures, blood analyses, physical examinations and so forth, and then provide the doctor with an assessment of probabilities of different conditions, or something like that. In this sad case, I imagine the doctor would then have had to make a decision to dismiss cancer from the list of possible conditions presented to him or her in black and white. This would be psychologically hard to do - and to justify in retrospect - if the AI came up with a probability of, say, over 20% for cancer. So maybe it might have prompted an intervention.

Hmm, I think this may be misunderstanding how diagnostic AI works. These are, to my understanding, not LLMs.

Merkel took that decision in 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima accident and long before Putin's invasion of Crimea. At the time, Germany had not yet given up Russia becoming a civilised trading partner. It is true that, even at the time, many other countries thought it a misguided over-reaction, given the climate change imperative (not to mention the absence of earthquake risk in Germany!). But there is no evidence of any "payment" to make this decision, so far as I am aware. This looks to me like just more of your (very Russian, trollish) obsession with conspiracies.

Presumably because GDAE is how a violin is tuned, I seem to recall from when one of my brothers used to play.

Oh so you actually went to see it? We didn't. We just laughed at the posters for it on the Underground, on our way to and from school.

Haha I remember that one: "Krakatoa, East of Java". 🤪 I was at school at the time and we laughed at the idiocy.

That’s interesting. Seems the story of him being on death row is untrue. Also I was wrong about the number who died: 30,000 not 20, 000. Lacroix, who was among the first on the scene, took dramatic pictures of the aftermath which Holmes reproduced in the book, including the sinister “spine”, turdlike, of almost solid lava, which was extruded up to a height of I think ~ 100m afterwards, though it soon crumbled. It even glowed in the dark, creepily, for a bit, I think. You can visit Sylbaris’s cell among the ruins. I found Martinique, being part of France, orderly and good to visit. I tried my first ti’ punch there - something I often make at home now in the summer. Needs rhum agricole, which I buy in France - Bacardi no good at all for it. We also tried sugar cane juice, on the beach. Very good and with far more flavour than I was expecting. (But you will know all this, being in the Caribbean yourself.🙂)

Holmes also contained a dramatic account of the 1902 eruption of la montagne Pelée which destroyed st. Pierre in Martinique, which made a great impression on me. At that time, the term he used for what we now call a pyroclastic flow was une nuée ardente. I think it may have originated with that eruption. Some years ago I climbed the mountain with my wife and son, as far as the 1st crater rim. Bizarrely, she was rung up by her uncle in Paris, just as we reached the ridge. He had no idea where we were. The ruins of St. Pierre are a sombre reminder of the tragedy. 20,000 people perished. I think only three survived, one of them, ironically, a condemned convict in a deep cell in the prison, who subsequently earned a living by showing off the scars on his back from the burns. They never had the heart to rebuild, establishing a new capital at Fort de France.

Yes! That was why my mother, then teaching geography at the local girls' grammar school, bought the book. Plate tectonics was the new thing. She was quite excited by it and so, having a scientifically-minded boy's interest in volcanoes, I read parts of the book myself. Of course the detailed understanding of how volcanoes arise behind subduction zones has progressed hugely since then, but the principle was already there.

I remember reading an account of this in Arthur Holmes's Principles of Physical Geology, as a teenager in the 1960s. At that time Anak Krakatau was quite small, still. Now, I gather, it has grown to adulthood and has even suffered a collapse rather like that of its parent, though not as dramatic.

The question tells you A and B are pure liquids, not mixtures. Why are you asking about the composition of liquid A, then?

I've only just read this. Would it be a silly idea to run a couple of vast flywheels, just to add "ballast" to the system? One could even simply retain a couple of these big turbo-alternator sets, unpowered, and spun up and maintained to 50Hz off the grid.

Yes exactly. So there is a greater mole fraction of B in the vapour phase than there is in the liquid phase, because it has a greater vapour pressure than A. In other words, B is the more volatile component. And you can work out the mole fractions in the vapour phase by multiplying the vapour pressure of each component by its mole fraction in the liquid phase. So I don't see why you think there is a problem. For a physical picture of what is happening, you can consider the molecules on the liquid surface, as it is from this layer that molecules escape to create the vapour phase. 40% of them on the surface are A and 60% of them are B. But in pure liquid form, molecules of A have less of a tendency to escape than the molceules of B. That is what a lower vapour pressure of A than B implies. So in the mixture, not only are there only 40% of A molecules in the surface layer but also, they have less of an intrinsic tendency to escape. Hence we get 30% A and 70% B in the vapour phase. This is the principle behind fractional distillation. In the fractionating column, the mixture is made to evaporate and condense repeatedly as it rises up the column, each time creating a mixture with a higher proportion of the more volatile component. So that at the top of the column you get the more volatile component in almost pure form. (I once worked at an oil refinery🙂)

Just do what I asked you, and make a new post showing your reasoning. I’m going to get up and have my breakfast now (it is 0730 in the UK) and then I can come back to this for you. Let’s take it step by step without the distraction of AI and get the logic clear.

If you want to learn, you need to forget AI and work the problem out yourself. It sounds to me as if you have not done that. If you had, you would not be asking this question. Look up Raoult’s Law - then calculate for yourself the first part of the problem and show me how you did that. Then we can talk about the second part.

What liquid composition did you get?

I am not interested in debating AI output. How do you work it out?

I am having to guess at your meaning but what I think you may be trying to ask is which substituent is allocated position number one in the numbering convention. It is normally done by choosing position 1 to give the lowest numbers for the other groups. So in the first example the left hand NO2 group is a poor choice since you then get 1, 3 nitro , 4 chloro, total 8. Similarly if you choose the right hand NO2 as position 1 you get 1, 5 nitro 2 chloro = 8 or (going round the other way) 1,3 nitro 5 chloro = 9, even worse. By choosing Cl as position 1 you get 1 chloro, 2,4 nitro = 7, which minimises the numbers.

I specifically asked you about the democracies in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands and by what mechanism this "elite" of yours controls candidate selection. You have not answered that, preferring instead to continue to give examples from the USA. If you make a criticism of "western" democracies, you cannot just base it on cherry-picked examples from the USA.

These statements need support. Whom do you think constitutes your "financial elite"? And by what mechanism do they - whoever they are - prevent "smart and honest people" from becoming elected representatives in the UK, Germany or the Netherlands, for example?

If you like Minnie Driver, this is quite funny. I'm coming to the conclusion she is rather a good sport and would be fun to meet:

Ah yes, another "framework".