• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • This isn’t going to be accurate, it’s ignoring a key aspect of the heat that will be generated, friction. When designing materials for prosthetics we have to be aware of how much friction occurs between the material and skin. If the amount of friction is too great, the material can create enough heat to damage tissue.

    The formula for the skin friction coefficient is cf=τw12ρeue2, where ρe and ue are the density and longitudinal velocity at the boundary layer’s edge.



  • Yeah… This is a bit sketchy. Pharmaceuticals aren’t just something that an amateur can make by following step by step instructions. Even something as simple as baking a cake requires some basic experience to know when things are going right or wrong.

    Even maintaining the calibration on a CLR requires some background experience, let alone building and programming one all on your own. With your actual reactor being as small as a mason jar, it means the margin for error is going to be small as well.

    This is neat for people with a background in chemistry, but I don’t really see it as anything but dangerous for the general public. They also are fudging their math a bit to make things seem a lot cheaper. Reagents can be really cheap at bulk prices, but you have to spend the time looking for them, and they aren’t equating the cost of a trained chemist making these medications.


  • seems today’s pattern in general. Such projects go for something hardly achievable, don’t achieve it, give us all that feeling of passive frustration, and divert attention.

    I think it’s kinda a byproduct of venture capital funding. With the Fed prioritizing low interest rates for the last decade, investors are a lot more willing to stick their money in yolo financial schemes.

    There are plenty of places on the planet which could use additional electricity, water, wired connectivity, normal roads.

    Pssh, why build physical things when you can just gamble on things like virtual currency, virtual intellect, or even virtual reality… /s

    Or, say, security from armed apes with UN membership, like Azerbaijan.

    Lesser Armenia has really flown off the handle lately. I don’t really know why they have UN membership, Azerbaijan is basically “what if the Saudi tried to build Singapore on the Caspian sea”.








  • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlCommon ground
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Mongolians are mainly known for their horsemanship rather than their marksmanship. They are probably the best marksman on horseback that have ever lived, but as far as historically being known for their archery…that’s the Koreans, and they’re still pretty dominant in the Olympics.



  • It wasn’t even that long ago, I delivered for Papa John’s in the late 00s. Some of the guys had tomtoms, but they were always out of date, and would lead you astray more often than not.

    We mostly just used a giant laminated map of our delivery area that was attached to the heat shield of the pizza oven. You’d be surprised how quickly you can memorize the layout of a small city when your pay is dependent on it.

    I haven’t been back to that town since college like 20 years ago, but if you gave me an address there, I could still prob pin point it on a blank map.


  • she didn’t. People keep repeating this, but it’s not a fact. The DNC started transitioning over to Hillary after Bernie already had statistically ZERO chance

    Sure…

    really weird that everyone seems to hate Democrats who run for president more than Republicans who run for President, but for reasons they can never quite pin down to anything related to facts.

    Lol, just because I criticize Democrats doesn’t mean I don’t criticize Republicans. It doesn’t come up as much because it’s a given that Republicans are going to be awful people.

    Also, it’s not that people don’t provide facts, it’s just that you ignore them when presented. I noticed you didn’t confront the Idiocracy of her not campaigning in Michigan…

    Yeah, I know. Hillary was further to the left than her husband.

    Lol, Hilary was just as much of a moderate as bill Clinton, they literally developed American 3rd way politics together.

    Should we have given Trump the 2016 presidency because Hillary was married to a moderate?

    Lol, what a pointless strawman argument… Hillary Clinton has her own political career we can judge her upon. Plus, this is moot as Clinton already “gave” trump the Whitehouse by not campaigning in Michigan.

    “Offhandedly blaming 9/11 on the Taliban does nothing but drive people away”.

    Lol, I know your trying to make a point here, but it’s as hilariously flawed as your argument. Yes blaming 9/11 completely on the Taliban is highly reductive and does nothing but further entrench Americans in nationalism. 9/11 is the result of blowback from the cold war.

    There’s no question 2016 was Republican propaganda and Hillary. I ABSOLUTELY have valid criticisms about the Democratic party. But that doesn’t mean every stupid criticism should be taken as valid. The Republicans have gotten REALLY good at the propaganda game.

    You are conflating valid criticism with “stupid criticism”. Nothing I’ve stated is unsupported by evidence.

    As “unpopular” as Hillary was, she was sladed to crush her by historic margins before you account for the Russian hacking scandal.

    Except her popularity was already drastically shifting weeks before the comey letter was released. It was always a tight race, what evidence do you have that supports her win by “historic margins”?

    The “Comey effect” is literally an idea propagated by her campaign to explain the lost. Even though theres testimony from people on her team that begged her to campaign in key swing states, and blame her ignoring that advise for the lost.

    I’m not saying there wasn’t interference, I’m just saying that it wasn’t solely to blame for her poor performance. You just can’t ignore swing potential swing states in that tight of an election.

    Normally I would agree with you. 2016 was different. If Charles Manson ran for President and won, it’s the voters faults. NOBODY who did the least bit of research wasn’t shitting their pants on election day 2016.

    I don’t really see what you’re trying to get across here…

    And because we can’t fucking learn our lessons and we STILL blame the perfectly viable Hillary Clinton.

    Lol, she lost… She wasn’t a viable candidate, and there were concerns about her campaign throughout the entire process. Historically, running a milquetoast career politician against a firebrand populist is always a poor prospect. The political landscape has changed, but the DNC refuses to change, they just blame the constituency for not playing along.


  • Hillary was unlikeable because she was a woman who wasn’t submissive. Sexist people hate that. Everyone who ever met her loves her.

    I mean, that’s just validating her own reasoning on why she lost the election. She didn’t win because she was arrogant, and decided she didn’t have to campaign in Michigan.

    People also didn’t like the fact that she and the DNC colluded together to torpedo Sander’s primary at any given chance.

    I personally don’t like her because of what the Clinton’s have done to the DNC over the last 2 decades, particularly their championing of 3rd way politics.

    Offhandedly blaming every valid criticism as Republican propaganda does nothing but drive people away. Hillary Clinton was obviously a bad candidate, this is self evident in the fact that she lost to a conman.

    It’s not the job of the DNC to blame voters for not voting for their chosen candidate, it’s their job to give us candidates that we want to vote for.


  • Pretty hard to argue against radically different biological design between our brains.

    I don’t really see the argument… For one, all mammals share fairly similar brain structures, with the main difference being the over or under development of particular regions of the brain.

    However, even if we accept the claim that they are “radically different”. A mere difference in brain structure does not preclude the ability to have complex emotions.

    Yes, humans can be psychopaths and sociopaths.

    I’m not sure if that’s really relevant, sociopathy and psychopathy are defined by the subjects inability to conform to social mores. These terms cannot definitionally be applied to animals. However, there are plenty of examples of animals being shunned by their social groups, or animals who choose to stray from their social norms.

    I’m not claiming animals share the same emotional capabilities as humans, but it’s unscientific to claim that they are incapable of complex emotions based on the evidence presumed in this thread.

    Imo there’s been a bit of an overcorrection in science when it comes to trying to curb anthropomorphizing. And a lot of that is due to people like Thomas Nagel, who have a vested interest in stripping animals of terms like consciousness.


  • Pretty sure every human who understands the concept of death are stressed about it at some point in their life.

    Right, but how does one express their anxiety over the concept of death? And if someone does not express their anxiety in a perceivable way, does that mean they do not experience it?

    If we took away a person’s ability to vocalize their grievances, what kind of behavior of theirs would we attribute to an existential crisis? And how would we determine that type of anxiety from normal interaction with the external environment?


  • I mean, that could just be a fault in observation. The same line of thinking was utilized by people like Thomas Jefferson to validate his own use of slavery.

    The language we use to describe intellect and emotions are inseparable from biased interpretation by humans. Can all humans “stress about theoretical concepts”? If a human lacks the ability to do so, do they become less human, or more animalistic?


  • A person’s sex is science, but their gender is a social construct.

    Even sex is not the black and white dichotomy most people make it out to be. The way we define and dictate someone’s sex isn’t reproducible for everyone. The intersex population is larger than what most people assume, and can vary in ways that defy the way we normally evaluate sex. It can range from someone having different chromosomal pairings, to having a varied arrangement of secondary sexual organs.

    Anyone saying that someone’s sex is scientifically dependent on “x” is either ignorant, or academically dishonest.