Ugch, fine, you can use me to feed a patch of mushrooms that's beginning to grow in the now-warming areas of the planet, ultimately to become a giant organism/network that covers Antarctica in white mycelium/mushrooms/spores to replace the albedo effect of snow/ice to save the future of all life on Earth.
Antarctic Substrate Location? I was thinking on a hill surrounded by antarctic pearlwort in bloom.
If you mean ADSL, yeah that's what I have. Just 6Mbps (7-8 if I'm lucky).
The other thing? Not sure how it's relevant, but
A: 3 comments (and days) ago, I referenced the Armored Core demo on a specific PS1 demo disc. And I with health issues, you may as well consider me even older than I actually am.
S: No. (G: ideally, a brain-in-a-jar hooked up to a computer or something like this)
L: Pretty fucking far from OK Antarctica. I'm in the-edge-of-nowhere in northern trickledown-land.
I kind of hate this image. Its like a way to discredit all the learning done in the formative elementary/high school years. If I would guess, 60-70% of everything I have learned was in high school and thats with me having several published papers.
Capitalism is like fire. Let it run free and it will burn your home down, and your family to death. If it’s controlled, and focused however, it will keep them warm, and power your industry.
Unfortunately, we’ve let capitalism run rampant, and now we need to bring it back under control.
Great analogy, but I cant fully agree. It seems to me that capitalism will almost always act the same way, it will always seek out every manipulation and loophole possible to get money into politics and then its good game. The people will never be able to stay as informed and hardworking at voting for right people and policies, as private money will be at buying the worst candidates and policies. Greed is essentially baked into capitalism.
…Then again what system wont be broken by the worst parts of humanity given enough time. I feel like the constitution should have been more robust, set out ethical guidelines for the country, it would make it so much harder to be a piece of shit and claim you love America at the same time. Especially as I see nationalism as the final nail in our coffin.
This is not capitalisms fault. It’s weak and corrupt leadership. Leaders who care more about people than power and money are required to keep it in check. Last time I looked they were all doing their own thing and I can’t blame them but still, it would be nice.
Except it is capitalisms fault. If the capitalist must make more money each year than it did the year before, eventually the only way to make that happen is by influencing elections to get bills passed that bring up the ladder behind you solidifying your monopoly, or by deregulating the market so you can produce more with less.
What you’re describing is not only caused by unchecked greed (solved by strong leadership), it’s lazy capitalism. In actual capitalism the business must achieve constant growth yes, but the part people forget is this is supposed to be achieved through innovation and adaptation. If the businesses fails to do this it goes out of business. Capitalism allows for years of decline so long as the business is strong enough to sustain it. What we’re seeing by companies influencing elections is open admission that they are either struggling to produce innovation or they are greedy. Sometimes probably both. If they are innovating like alphabet or meta and they still do it it’s lazy greed plain and simple. Capitalism ends here, strong leadership should start here and push back against it. You could argue this is where democracy is broken because these companies can control the flow of information and will sway public opinion to vote out a politician that doesn’t play their game. Unfortunately this is still poor leadership. A truely good leader will do their job regardless of public opinion or in the face of losing an election.
I think we disagree on one specific point, I believe weak leadership is a guarantee when massive institutions can no longer grow and instead seek to cheat growth through political action. The vote of the people is meaningless when compared to so much capital. I believe it to be inevitable. Sure strong leadership could prevent this, ,but we elect leadership and are easily manipulated.
Yeh I agree it’s fucking dire. The electing of easily manipulated leadership is the problem. Basically capitalism has hijacked democracy and the only way forward is through selfless leadership. Without it capitalism will probably consume us. You’re probably right that it will but it’s nice to know there’s a solution, better than no solution.
Dude, I’m a surgical tech - my job is to stand in an OR and be a surgeon’s bitch while we’re flaying some fucker open. …and I still spend what feels like 90% of my day on Outlook -_-
I mean, isn’t the entire concept of the Fermi paradox that given the universe is so large and old, it seems surprising that we see no signs of aliens anywhere, and therefore some explanation must exist for why we have not? That’s more focused on intelligent life than extraterrestrial life of any sort I suppose, but given it’s even named a paradox in the first place, someone must find it surprising
My argument of that is that we’ve only just started looking in a massive, massive, massive universe. Like, the other day. The big bang theory is less than a hundred years old and we only just discovered cosmic background radiation in 1964
We JUST started looking and we probably have no idea what we are looking for or at.
Also, these earth like planets are a fucking guess, a giant maybe. They make their host star, which we make assumptions of about their size, make a tiny hardly perceptible dip in light and we measure the wavelengts that were filtered out.
The more I learn about how this science is done, the more it all just looks like a big fucking maybe that someone spouts so confidently as fact. Like, the track record for fact is pretty thin in science.
The Fermi Paradox feels like someone sticking their finger in the water at the beach and confidently declaring there are no whales in the ocean because they didn’t touch one.
I guess people tend to look to astronomers for information about space, while the Fermi paradox probably borders more on philosophy than on astronomy. And in a lot of people minds philosophers are not real scientists, unlike astronomers.
In addition to the other helpful replies, one of the major flaws of the Fermi paradox is that it fails to account for the vastness of time. Our failure to observe spacefaring intelligent life is the metaphorical equivalent of a baby born at some point in human history somewhere on earth, opening it’s eyes only long enough to blink, and not observing Cher. It doesn’t mean that Cher doesn’t exist, or even that Cher should be observable given that humanity is so large and old.
My favourite is the idea that it takes time to build out the “infrastructure” that allows for life. Basically, no supernovae, no life, not enough supernovae, extremely low probability of life. Even if that doesn’t put Earth’s life near the leading edge, we may be on the leading edge of technological civilizations.
I’d also point out that we’ve nearly wiped ourselves out several times, and we’re headed towards making our planet incompatible with life. If the conditions for life exist AND life evolves to be sentient AND the sentient life develops communication AND the communication fosters cooperation AND the cooperation leads to technology AND that technology allows the life to survive the vastness of space AND the technology allows for interstellar travel, all that progress could end with a meteor or a virus or a particularly strong solar storm that blows through the magnetosphere and takes our atmosphere with it.
The conditions for sentient technological species exist on earth, and humans are the only ones even close to surviving in space. Dolphins, octopodes, dinosaurs, corvids nothing else is even sharing arbitrary knowledge yet. For that to even happen, we’d probably all need to be dead.
The ratio is off. You learn a lot more from high school and bachelor’s degree and you learn way less with your master. PhD is just expanding a little bit more on master.
Common knowledge would be more appropriate. It is known by many people, but it is not basic as in obvious. It took a long time to know what we learn in a very “basic” high school biology course.
And if you actually remember half of what you learned in that course a decade later, people ask things like, “where do you learn this shit?”
The visual is more about highlighting specialization and its distance from the limit of human knowledge. You often can’t represent every aspect of a complex subject at the same time on a single visual. Kinda like how you can’t represent the solar system distances and planet sizes to scale on a single page, you have to pick one.
Fun fact: he wanted to study mice breeding but the church said no because it was lewd. If he had he probably wouldn’t have figured things out since mice genetics aren’t as simple as peas.
He also kept bees in the monastery garden and tried to do experiments on them but it wasn’t known back then that bees mate high in the air, so his attempts to breed them were futile. Other monks were often stung or annoyed by the nasty bees so he quit beekeeping.
Source: Mathematics of Life by Ian Stewart. I also visited his museum on Mendel Square, Brno.
Once Upon a Time… The Discoverers ep. 16 also mentioned that the monks were annoyed at eating peas too often but I forgot to ask at the museum if that’s true.
Imagine being the person in charge. You all are bound to celibacy, so you’ve seen and heard hushed tales of all kinds of …interesting side effects from living in that state for years.
This guy walks in and makes his sales pitch. He wants to keep mice in the monestary. And have them get it on. Mostly under his personal observation. For science. Totally not some odd perversion, promise.
I’m wondering, how come studying mice breeding was considered lewd when humans had already been breeding a variety of livestock (and selecting traits at this) for thousands of years?
I think it was just the idea of this friar watching mice fuck seemed pornographic in a way. I don’t think maintaining mice colony was the issue, it was the sex.
If youre able to explain something in 5 sentences and put a table and plot with the results. Do it. No need to elaborate in 5 pages how fucked up your ability is to use thesaurus for synonyms.
Edit. Usually i read the headline and put the article into my bibtex library.
5 pages?!??! In my discipline, we spend five pages just kissing reviewer 2’s behind and begging people to take an interest. Then we spend 20 pages citing everyone and their adviser and their adviser’s second cousin on the off chance that they’re married to reviewer 2. Then you get a copy-paste of the documentation of one of the five datasets that everyone uses.
Agreed. The worst part to write for me are always the fucking "introduction"s, explain why we did this, why it deserves your attention and a lot of addedd fluff. I did it because I wanted to. Read it if you are interested, go away if not.
I had this problem for my bachelor thesis. I used some other paper about machine learning and changed some parameters. Others I didn’t touch because I didn’t knew what they do. Now I have to explain why I copied those parameters. I just wrote in testing they proved to be the best.
“You CANNOT name this species the ‘greater blue-balled ding-dong monkey’. Not least because we will not let you name something else the ‘lesser blue-balled ding-dong monkey’!”
(Erm…ACKUALLY)While you can hunt with a 50-caliber. It’s usually only with a black powder rifle. Even then, I’ve seen most .50 black powder rifles use a 44 bullet with a sabbot or something similar.
That and hunting with larger calibers are usually illegal.
science_memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.