drumbo

You can use the photoelectric effect since when the light strikes metal plates they will emit photoelectrons which can be used to power a device which records the reading from an atomic clock. Given the distance between the metal plates and the readings from the atomic clocks you can calculate the speed.

Do you have multiple Python installations? The installation you just did in the shell would be in whatever Python installation path you have in the system PATH variable if you're using Windows, so you should be fine if you run the Python script from the Shell. If you're using an IDE it might be using a different Python path.

It's not that complicated. We hate them because they're threatening and ugly.

Agreed. It will take some legwork on my part to understand the mathematical statistics of ELO/Glicko scores, but to be honest it's not like I have the resources or position to conduct this study in any case. I just wanted to develop the idea in case it's useful to someone who has the means to conduct the study, I'm talking to you academia lurkers!

The solar wind blows away asteroids and comets that may have otherwise impacted the Earth.

Can this molecule be used to gain muscle here on Earth?

It depends on what you did I guess. Taking a leak on the side of a wall behind a pub isn't a big deal to most people, but diddling kids is considered abhorrent by most.

Nitration of toluene gives mono-, di-, and trinitrotoluene. The nitration of phenol with sodium nitrate gives a mixture of two isomers, from which the wanted 4-nitrophenol (bp 279 °C) can easily be separated by steam distillation. In the nitration of of benzaldehyde the product mixture is 19% ortho, 72% meta, and 9% para: I would guess that 2,4-DNP and 2,6-DNP are the dinitro isomers that would preferentially form upon nitration of 2-NP, and that the nitration of acetophenone gives m-nitroacetophenone.

We need to decide where our priorities lie. Creating a buffer between forests and residential areas may prevent damage to property, but it may inadvertently put people in danger. The goals of maximizing the protection of property and the potential to protect people from danger are juxtaposed, we cannot maximize both.

Many aspects of our society are harmful to stupid people. If you cannot get good grades in school you are unlikely to get the education credentials you need to make a decent living. Even if you manage to get a decent degree you are still faced with the challenge of not coming across as a troglodyte during job interviews, and actually performing well if you are hired. In 21st century Western countries almost all of us have had decent nutrition and ample opportunities to acquire knowledge and cultivate our minds, and therefore most of the variation in how smart we are relative to each other is determined by our innate design which we had no control over. Should we accept that stupid people are not responsible for their deficits, and start giving them money so that they can be happy?

John 1:5

Run this command in your shell pip install anytree

God made water right here on Earth, but it is unclear when. In Genesis 1:1 it is written that: and in Genesis 1:2 it is written that: so it is unclear if God made water on day one or two.

No we cannot. As long as you are vulnerable to violence or ostracization you do not have freedom of speech, and you are always vulnerable. Apparently even the most powerful man in the world is vulnerable, hence why the Secret Service exists and believe it or not the POTUS can't say absolutely anything he wants without repercussion.

Did you realize this after you decided that EM currents are "destroyers of biological life" or before? It's a shame that your muse Michael Faraday did not manage to reproduce as well.

I see, and if he was going 0.9c would his travel time from the Earth's reference frame be 11.11... years?

I have some questions, and it involves some speculation, but it is somewhat grounded within the currently accepted theory of relativity so I hope what I am proposing is not too speculative. Velocity is defined as displacement divided by time elapsed, and we can calculate the average velocity for an entire trip or the instantaneous velocity at a moment in time. The picture below illustrates this with the scalar portion: Now let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that we are here on Earth, and John takes off in a space ship to head to a destination 10 light years away. In John's reference frame he records that it takes 11.11... years to complete the trip implying that the average velocity for the trip was 0.9 light years per year. Meanwhile back on Earth we have been observing John's spaceship. Due to John's high average velocity of 0.9c we experience time dilation which implies that by the time John reaches his destination more than 11.11 years will have passed here on Earth, and therefore if we calculate John's average velocity for the trip from our reference frame it will be greater than 0.9 light years per year. The point is that the average velocity of an object is not the same in all reference frames(?). Now consider an alternative question. Is the instantaneous velocity of an object the same from the perspective all reference frames? If it is then the equation where v(t) is velocity at time t and x(t) is position at time t is not true(?) for reference frames not fixed on the object whose velocity and displacement are being measured. In fact due to time dilation we must introduce the non-linearity residual (NLR) since the instantaneous velocities do not(?) add linearly to give the average velocity. Note that NLR > 0. So my questions are straightforward; is it true that the average velocity of an object is not the same in all reference frames, is it true that the instantaneous velocity of an object the same from the perspective all reference frames, and must NLR > 0? I am asking this since if what I have conjectured is true, then could we not measure the NLR by sending probes into space? Send a probe in any direction really, and have it record the distance it travels along with the time elapsed. Simultaneously observe the probe from here on Earth recording the distance it travels along with the time elapsed, and then could we not calculate the NLR? Sorry if I am demonstrating a complete ignorance of relativity, I have not studied physics beyond some first year electives in university which focused on Newtonian mechanics and waves. I am very intrigued by this since a calculation of the NLR, if it exists, over different paths in space could reveal some useful information. Edit: I made a small error in the 2nd equation

I think many people forget to consider that velocity is defined as displacement divided by time elapsed, and we make take its infinitesimal limit as time elapsed approaches zero or calculate the average velocity for the trip. Average velocity for the trip cannot be the same for all observers because of time dilation, but is it the same for all observers in the infinitesimal limit?

Do you think there would be much of the anhydride in the azeotropic mixture? AFAIK the only way to prepare phosphorus pentoxide is by burning elemental phosphorus, but that may only be due to the difficulty of extracting the anhydride from the azeotropic mixture of very hot vaporized phosphoric acid, if it is even present there at all.

The carbothermic reduction of phosphoric acid is thought to be represented by the reaction: 4H3PO4 + 16C → 6H2 + 16CO + P4 The equilibrium equations for orthophosphoric acid are: H3PO4 + H2O ↔ H3O+ + H2PO4- H2PO4- + H2O ↔ H3O+ + HPO42- HPO42- + H2O ↔ H3O+ + PO43- Condensation reactions can join phosphoric acid molecules: 2H3PO4 → H4P2O7 + H2O H4P2O7 + H3PO4 → H5P3O10 + H2O Condensation between two -OH units of the same molecule can create a cyclic molecule: H5P3O10 → H3P3O9 + H2O The chemical structure of activated carbon is closely approximated by the structure of graphite: The thermodynamics of H3PO4 vaporization was studied by Brown and White in "Vapor pressure of phosphoric acids" (1952). As the acid is heated P4O10/mass% moves towards the azeotropic equilibrium with a composition of approximately 92% P4O10. In the Huhti and Gartaganis paper "The composition of the strong phosphoric acids" (1956) the percent of "Hypoly-" phosphoric acids at 86.26 wt. % P2O5 was found to be 66.03%, and in general there was a monotonic increasing relationship between these two percentages. From this we can surmise that the carbothermic reduction of phosphoric acid involves reductions of hypoly- and -meta phosphoric acid molecules, but what are the precise mechanisms? Mechanisms which immediately came to my mind included homolytic cleavage + radical mechanisms, and dehydration, but it is difficult to visualize how this would play out in 3-d space at the molecular level, especially since it probably requires a precise accounting of the activity of sigma and pi bonds, and the unpaired elections left over after a homolytic cleavage event. I am continuing to hack away at this problem slowly with drawings to increase my visual memory while I try to visualize what is happening at the molecular level, but I am asking for your thoughts and help in solving this complicated problem.

Many human secondary sex characteristics are seemingly clear and obvious in their benefits to the organism, e.g. greater body size in males would give an advantage in intra-male competition and the performance of physical labor, the major downside being greater caloric expenditure. However humans have many secondary sex characteristics that don't seem to increase the organism's chances of survival. I'll briefly list these "unnecessary" secondary sex characteristics that I've thought of, and hypothesize how those traits became prevalent in humans. Neoteny in females: Men probably over-selected for neoteny since youth was associated with fertility. What is curious is that the male preference for neoteny seems to have beaten out the female preference for skull masculinization, since the modern human skull is more neotenous than the discovered skulls of our ancestors. This is consistent with the observation that males historically had more control over sexual selection due to their greater physical strength and possession of resources. Larger than necessary breasts in females: Women's breasts are larger in comparison to their bodies than in other mammals. This is most likely due to sexual selection. Hair patterning in males: There are a number of areas on the male body where hair is found in certain consistent patterns. I'll enumerate these areas below. Male pattern hair loss: Certainly not sexually selected for today, but it may have been in the past. May have conferred some advantage in competition with other males if male pattern hair loss was associated with seniority and correspondingly greater status. Facial hair: Growth patterns seem to have little variation, with growth on the bottom of the cheeks, below the chin, and above the lips. The consistency in the growth pattern suggests that sexual selection played in a major role in producing specific growth patterns, since selection through competition with other males would be unlikely to produce such consistency. May have conferred some advantage in competition with other males if facial hair was associated with greater seniority and status. Torso hair patterning: Another curious trait for its fairly consistent patterns across the world, with hair on the chest, a strip of hair leading from the center of the chest down towards and past the navel, connecting with hair in the pubic region. The consistency of the pattern, and the low likelihood of its relevance in intra-male competition, suggests that it is strongly sexually selected. Skull masculinization in males: Certainly sexually selected for today, and was probably sexually selected for in the past as well. May have also conferred advantages in social competition with other males. Voice deepening in males: Likely to have been both sexually selected and beneficial in competition with other males. Research has shown that men with deeper voices are preferred by women, and are perceived as more authoritative by other men. Larger than necessary penis in males: Almost certainly due to sexual selection, it is easy to imagine that men with larger penises would have more repeated sexual encounters. Forearm vascularity in males(?): Especially on the underside of the forearm males have many veins near the surface of the skin. The placement of these veins on the underside of the forearm where they face towards and are thus guarded by the torso is consistent with the observation that veins near the surface of the skin are at risk of laceration, and therefore they should not be placed in areas which are more vulnerable such as the outside of the forearm. Common knowledge dictates that some vascularity is attractive to women, and that veins would be safer if they were farther away from the surface of the skin. This suggests that forearm vascularity may have been sexually selected in males, but it is questionable. There may be a greater number of these "unnecessary" secondary sex characteristics (USSC) than what I have listed above, but I could not think of them. The first question I had is why do males seem to have a greater number of USSC's than females? I answered this question by assuming that every female that is capable and wanting to reproduce does, and therefore there is no way that females who lack a certain USSC could be completely prevented from passing on their traits; meanwhile we must assume that not every male who is capable and willing to pass on his traits does. My second question is why would females select for USSC's in the first place? I cannot believe that the behavior of any organism is random and purposeless. If we think hard enough we should be able to identify rational explanations for their behavior which increase the fitness of the species. A good place to start may be the case study of peacocks. Male peacocks have large colorful tails, a great example of a USSC. Ronald Fisher's sexy sons hypothesis already answers the question of why it is the best interest of a female to choose the male with the largest and most dazzling tail, but it doesn't explain why the females begin selecting for a USSC, or why they choose a specific trait. Females have a difficult problem to solve. They must quickly assess the fitness of males using credentials that cannot easily be spoofed by the "lesser" males. I theorize that solving this difficult problem is the purpose of selecting males based on USSC's. The most attractive females ostensibly have the best genetics, and if they choose the males with the most prominently displayed USSC's then the expression of those USSC's will become genuinely correlated with the expression of the best genetics. Now the females have solved their problem; they can quickly assess the genetic quality of each male at a glance by assuming that males who express USSC's most prominently have the best genetics in general. The initial choice of the USSC trait that will be used as a marker for genetic quality may be due to a sort of fad among the females, so it would effectively be random, the only strict requirement being that the trait must not be excessively detrimental to the organism's chances of survival. From that point onward the sexy sons hypothesis can explain the rest.

I was talking with a buddy on the train a couple of years ago, and he asked me what I thought about men who complain about some women not liking "nice" guys and instead going for "bad" guys. I asked him if he meant that those women don't like the "nice" guys because they are "nice", or despite them being "nice, and he said that it was despite them being "nice". I said the fact that they are "nice" is irrelevant then, since we can assume those women would still not like those "nice" men if they were "bad", and there must be other factors making them unattractive to those women. Eventually this got us talking about whether or not it was worth it to try to change one's personality to be more attractive to women, or if that was mostly a waste of time and maximizing the physical stuff was about the best that you could do. Now my buddy and I are both young good looking guys who are successful in our careers, and have had success wooing women, but my buddy has had more success with securing long term girlfriends and not much with short term flings, while I have had more success with short term flings but not long term relationships since my personality tends to repel women within a few weeks (I am highly disagreeable and argumentative, and frankly lacking in empathy or shame, which I am trying to work on). This made me question how I ever managed to get women to tolerate me at all, since I have talked to other young men who have told me about their difficulty in attracting women, and I couldn't find any great faults in their personalities which I don't have ten-fold in severity. In addition, my own experience with couples that I know, and those I don't know which I've seen holding hands walking down the street, has given me an intuitive belief that most the variation in who partners up with who is explained by the physical attributes rather than personality. But how can we test this hypothesis in a statistically robust manner? I thought about the website that Mark Zuckerberg's made when he was at Harvard, Facemash I think? AFAIK Zuckerberg scraped the pictures of female students from a publicly available Harvard webpage, and then hosted those photos on the Facemash website. If you visited the website, two photos would appear of different female students, and you would select the photo which you found more attractive, making the whole thing a sort of contest. Something akin to an ELO score, or a Glicko score, could then be computed in the posterior, iteratively, after each contest, and ostensibly after many such contests the most attractive women would have the highest ELO scores, and the least attractive women would have the lowest scores; the initial prior assumption is that the ELO score for each woman is equal. I thought that this scheme, done in a more ethical manner with permission of course, might be an excellent way to figure out how important personality really is in determining attractiveness for men. Note that if we compute ELO scores based purely upon photographs, then that ELO score should reflect physical attractiveness exclusively. Start with 100 men and 100 women volunteers in the 20-24 year old age bracket who do not know one another Allow those 100 men to assign ELO scores to the 100 women using a similar scheme to the one Zuckerberg used with Facemash Give each of the 100 men something akin to a Tinder profile that only shows their pictures without a biography (to avoid confounding with personality traits) Show each woman the "Tinder" profiles of each man, recording who she swipes right or left on Start with an initial prior assumption is that the ELO score for each man is equal, and adjust his ELO rating according the rough scheme: High ELO woman swipes right on high ELO man -> Small increase in man's ELO High ELO woman swipes right on low ELO man -> Large increase in man's ELO Low ELO woman swipes right on high ELO man -> Negligible increase in man's ELO Low ELO woman swipes right on low ELO man -> Small increase in man's ELO High ELO woman swipes left on high ELO man -> Small decrease in man's ELO High ELO woman swipes left on low ELO man -> Negligible decrease in man's ELO Low ELO woman swipes left on high ELO man -> Large decrease in man's ELO Low ELO woman swipes left on low ELO man -> Small decrease in man's ELO Now that we have ELO scores for each man, we proceed to compute personality ELO scores (P-ELO) Get each woman to have a 5 minute phone conversation with 12 different randomly selected men, and ask her if she would like to meet that man in person after each phone call Start with an initial prior assumption is that the P-ELO score for each man is equal, and adjust his P-ELO rating according the rough scheme: High ELO woman wants to meet high P-ELO man in person -> Small increase in man's P-ELO High ELO woman wants to meet low P-ELO man in person -> Large increase in man's P-ELO Low ELO woman wants to meet high P-ELO man in person -> Negligible increase in man's P-ELO Low ELO woman wants to meet low P-ELO man in person -> Small increase in man's P-ELO High ELO woman doesn't want to meet high P-ELO man in person -> Small decrease in man's P-ELO High ELO woman doesn't want to meet low P-ELO man in person -> Negligible decrease in man's P-ELO Low ELO woman doesn't want to meet high P-ELO man in person -> Large decrease in man's P-ELO Low ELO woman doesn't want to meet low P-ELO man in person -> Small decrease in man's P-ELO Now we can expect that the rating deviation for the P-ELO scores for the men will be high, since 100 women making 12 phone calls each will result in an average of 100*12/100 = 12 phone calls for each man, but that may be enough information to make statistically significant inferences given how we will proceed. We proceed as follows: Find a new sample of 100 women in the 20-24 year old age bracket Allow the same 100 men from above to assign ELO scores to the new sample of 100 women just as they did before, "Facemash style" Have each women go on 5 minute in person speed dates with 12 of the same men from above, randomly selected over the course of 1 hour At the end of the hour session ask each woman if she would like to go on a date with each man she talked to, and then adjust his overall ELO score (O-ELO) according to the rough scheme: High ELO woman wants to meet high O-ELO man in person -> Small increase in man's O-ELO High ELO woman wants to meet low O-ELO man in person -> Large increase in man's O-ELO Low ELO woman wants to meet high O-ELO man in person -> Negligible increase in man's O-ELO Low ELO woman wants to meet low O-ELO man in person -> Small increase in man's O-ELO High ELO woman doesn't want to meet high O-ELO man in person -> Small decrease in man's O-ELO High ELO woman doesn't want to meet low O-ELO man in person -> Negligible decrease in man's O-ELO Low ELO woman doesn't want to meet high O-ELO man in person -> Large decrease in man's O-ELO Low ELO woman doesn't want to meet low O-ELO man in person -> Small decrease in man's O-ELO Now we can compare the rankings of each man according to their ELO scores (based purely on the physical), P-ELO scores (based purely on personality), and O-ELO scores (based on in person interaction). If we find that the rankings are more consistent between the P-ELO and O-ELO rankings, then that would suggest that personality is more important than the physical in determining attractiveness. However if we find more consistency between the ELO and O-ELO rankings, then that would suggest that the physical stuff is more important than personality in determining attractiveness. For example, say I am ranked #25 in ELO, meaning there are 24 men with a higher ELO than myself, and that my buddy is ranked #26. However because of my unpleasant personality, my P-ELO ranking is #75, meanwhile my buddy's P-ELO is #26 since he's a "nice" guy. Now if personality is more important than the physical, we would expect my buddy's O-ELO ranking to be higher than mine, but that is what's really interesting to me, what we would find? I am looking for advice and comments on the statistical validity of analyzing this based on ELO scores, and if I am missing any confounding effects. Thanks

You're right it might not be enough. We'd better make sure she doesn't have a gun altogether then, nice work Columbo. Better take away her pepper spray too, it might not be enough. Don't even bother teaching her self defense techniques either, it might not be enough. Genius level argument.

I gave fair and valid responses to each source. I'm glad you've found an excuse to leave, I've never seen you make a constructive post.

So she just loses in a physical altercation 99.9% of the time? By shooting him.