Sohan Lalwani

Are you talking about physics or science collectively? Exactly, science is nearly and somewhat utterly everything Its like an attempt to summarize a single portion of the Milky Way

I see, perhaps I may play it sometime

Mrs Tilly likes fur coats but not fur

I am Indian, so would you prefer me call you uncle? Ok ""superadmin eternal grandpa" thank you 👍

I want to ask about Mammography Thanks for the article

What are you referencing here?

Mrs. Tilly replies "Yawn" in chats

You sleepy? Some very valuable input here Perhaps this man may relate to you.

An example is an article done by the "Radiology Business" which is linked here: https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/medical-practice-management/men-less-likely-specialize-mammography-calling-it-female-only Perhaps when you get the chance, answer my question if possible. Ok? Why the escalation?

I have corrected my statements when I was wrong, that is adapting. Perhaps I cannot add any value with fixation on me using AI models or not in my arguements. There is no point in debating this unless there is a definitive way I used AI, which there is not. Lets return to the original topic now please.

What is minecraft if you don't mind me asking? I looked it up and it is a gaming site, am I correct?

Do you have any material you would recommend regarding that subject matter? Perhaps OP may find it of value.

I overall understand that mammography as a whole tends to be a very intimate subject, and that the majority of people with breast cancer or female. But why are so many men avoiding it completely, or are discouraged from entering the specific area of that field? Urology is primarily male dominated, but women are encouraged to enter the field (Which I support 100%) Why not encourage men to enter radiology considering there is a shortage?

I understand what you are saying, but I still stand by my point in which precision matters. That's a fair point—and yes, if we're talking about a fully glaciated Earth with significantly higher albedo, the resulting cooling could absolutely drive temperatures much lower, as Snowball Earth scenarios suggest. But just to clarify where I was coming from: the -18°C estimate is the commonly accepted figure for Earth's effective temperature without any greenhouse effect, based on current albedo—not a post-glaciation Earth with all oceans frozen over. It’s a simplified model for energy balance, not a prediction of glacial coverage. My only goal was to make sure the physics behind it isn't unintentionally oversimplified."

I too teach various students, I can recognize AI writing. The thing is, I use a school chromebook, and the applicant "Cisco Umbrella" restricts the use of any form of any GPT 4-0 model/other forms of ai. There is also no definitive way to prove I used ai in my arguments either.

Precision matters, I have been imprecise but I correct myself after.

While I get that you're using the Moon as a metaphor for a planet without a greenhouse effect, it's worth noting that Earth's equilibrium temperature without greenhouse gases is calculated at around -18°C—not quite the same as the Moon’s -23°C, which also lacks the thermal inertia and moderating effect of oceans. So your point stands rhetorically, but the analogy could be tightened if we want to be precise.

I have, Im pointing out that your statement "Without CO2 Earth's average temperature would be no higher than the average temperature of the moon. About -20oC and life as we know it would not be possible" is factually incorrect. The Moon's average surface temperature is about -23°C, but the Earth would be much colder without greenhouse gases, closer to -18°C to -19°C, not because it's "like the Moon", but because the greenhouse effect is absent." Perhaps you should reread the statements

naturally occurring sequences capable of forming a triple DNA helix are quite common in human genomes, with a frequency of ~1 in every 50,000 bp, usually in the regions of our genomes used for regulation of how genes are to be used - Merogenomics

Agreed :)

To much of a simplification Earth, perhaps read on recent climate science

It depends heavily, as I stated, on gene expression. If the chimpanzee expresses enough human like phenotypes, it can be considered human to some extent

I see, thank you

But they are still under the branch homo, if the genes are placed well enough to have a decent amount of expression, it could be considered "Homo" to some extent.

A total of 51,230 papers was published on climate change, for the year 2020, within 5,796 scientific journals (Fig. 1A), leading to 36,355 mentions by international news media. The media attention concentrates on 9% of papers (≥1 mention in news media), while 2% of them reach extensive media attention (≥10 mentions). - Science Direct Perhaps tell them to read This is factually incorrect. The Moon's average surface temperature is about -23°C, but the Earth would be much colder without greenhouse gases, closer to -18°C to -19°C, not because it's "like the Moon", but because the greenhouse effect is absent. Your statement dramatically simplifies complex climate history. While CO₂ was relatively stable during the Holocene (~260–280 ppm), the phrasing ignores natural variations before that and implies an unbroken equilibrium.