[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Use with [math] tags for inline and [eqn] tags for block equations.
  • Right-click equations to view the source.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!


[Catalog] [Archive]

What potential lay there for this shape to be used in construction in the future? Seems like an efficient solution for creating stronger brick walls that pack more closely together. I’m not sure I entirely understand the exact geometry of trying to make joints with this. However.
>>
If you're talkin about structural it's basically just a shell that has frictive effects
>>
>>10498176
Shapes to complicated for traditional application.

Concrete is the amerifag "efficient" architecture of the modern era and thats no changing

As someone who is close to his doctorate in a hard science discipline, how do I cope with the fact that my work will never be as important to human development as the arts?
5 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
The Holy Spirit will come to you, when that happens, pursue Him, read The New Testament. Do not follow mormonism or Jehovas witnesses. Southern Baptists are probably the most conservative. Read the book of John. I pray for you!
>>
(and theological conservatives are good) So many try to water down the faith today. Christianity is special. Christ died for you.
>>
by saying bazinga irl with a kooky expression
AS. MUCH. AS. POSSIBLE.
>>
>>10497396
You won't, you never will. Religious people can't even come into agreement on many issues, yet all of them have "faith" that they are right. Do children go to hell? Infant baptism was practiced at least partially because this was traditionally believed to be true, but modern sensibilities make many people say "no", and most preachers won't even say it out loud even if they do believe it. Should people who left the religion be allowed to live? Aquinas said "no", and you can read up on how many people John Calvin executed. Modern religious conservatives say "yes" (because societal forces) but remain disdainful and elitist regarding other beliefs, being passive aggressive about them. These aren't even the biggest examples, e.g. theologians went back and forth over whether the old jewish laws should still be followed, in the past and in the present. All of them are selective about what they believe, but pretend they are not. I'm not shitting you on these things, look it up yourself.

People merely settle into denominations they fit in well, then they have "faith" that their tribe is right.
>>
i feel the same but inverted

File: Beluga_0.jpg (24 KB, 500x750)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
Where do you find accurate information? In particular, climate change data seems highly polluted with false reports and misinformation. Even reviewed research papers seem to be misleading, somehow pushing seperate agendas rather than delivering facts. Where do you find honest research?
82 replies and 18 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>10496077
>What? I've no idea what you're talking about. Subsidies and lobby money are two different, but related things. You lobby for things i.e. the various renewable orgs lobby for things. Do you not understand what lobbying is? The money goes org -> govt
You're the one who used the term! >>10493829. I'm asking you what you meant. It really shouldn't be so hard.

>Do you not understand what lobbying is? The money goes org -> govt
No, it goes org->lobbyist. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>I said it is in the interest of those lobbyists to fund scientists who are more alarmed than justified.
Yet you can't provide a single example of this happening.

>If you looked closer in the link, environment funding is grouped together with agriculture and spatial planning, and this group together gets ~123 mill USD. I'm not going to look any closer. This is enough to me to consider this a small amount.
That's just a group with the name environment in it, it doesn't tell us that or encompasses all climate research. Also, this ignores funding that goes to the EU for climate research. Much of European research is international. And how can you consider this a small amount when Sweden has 3% of the population of the US?

>Not spending money and getting to be carbon neutral clearly means that you do not have to spend a lot of money to go carbon neutral, this is logically obvious.
It's logically dangerous. Sweden benefits greatly from the ability to rely on hydro power. The US does not. And they did spend money on renewables, as your own source shows.

>Besides, most of the swedish shift was founded by the private sector
Your own source says the most important factor was tax exemptions, not a carbon tax. Tax exemptions are subsidies. Also I love how somehow putting a tax on carbon is "the private sector" but subsidies are not. Makes no sense.

>I don't know what to say.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
>>10496077
>They do, but in small amounts and with limitations.
More baseless generalizations.

>It makes energy more expensive, and barely, if at all, reduces emissions.
Solar and wind are more expensive, Sweden uses mostly hydro and nuclear. So are you going to admit that subsidizing them worked or are you going to continue this charade?

>>10496121
>You literally contradicted yourself.
Are you trying to imply that what you quoted is talking about the same thing? What the fuck is your problem?

>And yes, they did reduce emissions by 3 percent, which is laughable compared to the investment.
You don't even know how much was invested or what's worth it, you're talking out of your ass.

>Not to mention the huge difference in difficulty between supplying 0-25% of energy from renewables, to doing so exclusively.
Most our power should be nuclear.

> I said that there's an incentive for renewable companies to fund science like that.
The incentive is not worth the cost, which is why no one does it. Scientists already agree that emissions need to be reduced. On the other hand, fossil fuel companies can reap major benefits from a single contrarian paper being waved around by a Republican senator on a science committee. So your comparison only serves as equivocation.


Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
>>10489138
>wherever I am, I must also rape
>>
File: quotas.png (69 KB, 542x543)
69 KB
69 KB PNG
>>10496295
>I'm asking you what you meant.
I've explained it to you several times. I genuinely don't understand what YOU don't understand.

>No, it goes org->lobbyist.
Yes, org->lobbyist->govt.

>Yet you can't provide a single example of this happening.
No, I can't, and I never said I could. I only said there was an incentive.

>it doesn't tell us that or encompasses all climate research.
It doesn't, but the fact that all other groups have their own, non-climate goals does. But this all doesn't matter, and by "Sweden didn't spend much", I meant on infrastructure and generation, not research. This is a tangent that we shouldn't have went on. I apologize for not correcting this sooner.

>It's logically dangerous. Sweden benefits greatly from the ability to rely on hydro power. The US does not.
This is a good point, and I agree but it does not invalidate what I said. It might be possible for some US states to use hydro, it might not for others. Hydro will obviously be needed where it can be used.

>spent money on renewables
Also true, and I should have explained this sooner. While they did HAVE subsidies, the market largely didn't take advantage of them (solar + wind combined make up less than 10% of energy generated). Which goes to show that they really aren't worth it, even with subsidies.

>tax exemptions

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
>>10496295
I did not conflate anything. Scroll back and look. All I said was "a lot of taxpayer money was spent" I did not say that it was all on research. Tech grants and subsidies together make up a lot, those were what I meant, you just took my words to mean something else.

>>10496389
>generalizations
Addressed in >>10496295, only PV is subsidized, wind has tax incentive, and they still make up only a small amount of the generated energy.
Hydro and nuclear are not subsidized.

>Are you trying to imply that what you quoted is talking about the same thing? What the fuck is your problem?
Well, we're both off queue here. The subsidies and the GAO tables were separate things. You replied to me as if they weren't.
When I was talking about how much money was spent needlessly, I was talking about the GAO tech bracket + the subsidies, I did not mean the research. I'm sorry if that was unclear.

>You don't even know how much was invested or what's worth it, you're talking out of your ass.
Okay, now this is just wrong. I posted both the subsidy charts and the GAO article.

>Most our power should be nuclear.
Totally agree.

>The incentive is not worth the cost...
You're probably right. I can't be sure, because I can't get lobby breakdowns, but even on right-leaning sites, I couldn't find anything like that. Which is fine, because I didn't say it happened, only that there was an incentive.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1552951752441668564.png (2.41 MB, 2048x1536)
2.41 MB
2.41 MB PNG
is inteligence related to attractivness?

I think there is a common misconception, especially in school, that if you're ugly you must be smart but from my expierence it's the opposite given that also attractive people are treated better which also correlates to them having better opportunities and mental health.
14 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>10498431
that't the stupidest thing I've ever read
>>
File: stephen-king.jpg (21 KB, 550x600)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>10498343
>the worst thing is being ugly all your life
Maybe not the worst, but it's pretty bad.
What's the point of any kind of effort if I'm just going to die alone, living in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere because I can't convince anyone of my worth?
>>
>>10498431
This
>>
File: 1519510738504.png (127 KB, 500x405)
127 KB
127 KB PNG
>>10498431
kind of a generalization, but obviously duh logically judging achievement should be based on relative merit required for that achievement
>>
A person raised in a good environment might groom them self more, that's all the correlation there's in my opinion.

File: do it for him.jpg (81 KB, 454x584)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
After space travel becomes easier, states should encourage Orthodox and Catholic churches to establish monasteries on desolate planets and moons, preparing them for actual colonization. Since monks ar fond of hostile environments they won't mind.
>>
>>10498459
Why do you think your mudbound nationstate has any say in what happens on muh space clay?
>>
File: gasp.jpg (33 KB, 417x683)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
Sorry OP but pareidolia kicked in
>>
>>10498578
OwO Чтo этo тaкoe?
>>
>>10498459
Like the church of the Fragile from Neptunes Bounty then?

File: jAHmCL.gif (1.45 MB, 320x180)
1.45 MB
1.45 MB GIF
Ok so I smoked a lot of weed an came up with something and I wanted to know if somebody knows this already.

When you write down a Decimal number like n=1337 you're actually writing n=1*10^3+3*10^2+3*10^1+7*10^0

now let's re-write this like that:
f(x,y,z) = x*y^z;
n=f(1,10,3)+f(3,10,2)+f(3,10,1)+f(7,10,0)

let's write this in a more general Way (too lazy for latex):
n=...+f(x2,y2,z2)+f(x1,y1,z1)+f(x0,y0,z0)

now the cool think is that we can define any function as f(x,y,z), f.e.:
d(x,y,z) = 7x+3y+z or
k(x,y,z) = x+y+z-1

Now we can draw a 3 Dimensional Z-order Curve on Both functions to enumerate each result and where d == k you have a "wormhole".You can use this wormhole to move from one function space into the other. F.e. when d(1,2,3) = 16 and its Z-Curve enumeration position is 5 and k(4,6,7) = 16 but it's Z-Curve enumeration positon is 19 you could translate the function from k at pos 19 to to d at pos 5, essentialy "drawing an arrow from the point k(4,6,7) to the point d(1,2,3) ". You can use this to "chain" different functions together to prove stuff
3 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
File: 55MWqhs.png (256 KB, 552x464)
256 KB
256 KB PNG
>>10498392
>Goodstein's Theorem
I knew it.

>>10498387
>>10498389
biggest brainlets on this site
>>
>>10498386
Nice
>>
>>10498386
Actual brainlet here. How do you go from
>n=f(1,10,3)+f(3,10,2)+f(3,10,1)+f(7,10,0)

To


>n=...+f(x2,y2,z2)+f(x1,y1,z1)+f(x0,y0,z0)
>>
>>10498473
you can interpret the variables of a function as a Vector v1=(x1,y1,z1)=(1,10,3)
>>
File: HOOOOOOLY_BASED.jpg (12 KB, 333x151)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>>10498386
YO I CAN START TO SEE THAT BROOOOOOOOO

So I have been told that people on /sci/ deny that different races have different average IQ i.e. evolution stops at the neck. I thought this could not possibly be true. Is it?
31 replies and 6 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>10498737
>tell others to read the article
>miss the entire section on 'types of genes'
ok
>>
>>10498841
projection
>>
>>10498435
What is the purpose of IQ """research"""?
>>
i like how this thread made /sci/ shit themselves.

god bless richard dawkins.
>>
>>10498470
>race has nothing to do with biology
feel free to tell that to deceased people who had bone marrow donors of another race.

How the FUCK hasn't China figured out how to make their own planes yet?

https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1110439894633971712
9 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>10498464
>you're completely missing the point, the united states COULD make digital cameras,

and I COULD fly and shoot laser beams from my eyeballs, i just choose not to.
>>
>>10498464
So?
Not math or science
>>
>>10498420

You don't want to know how structural sheet metal parts for cars are made. It's like everyone is clueless and there are 2-3 people that are AWARE.
>>
>>10498493
you shooting lasers from your eyes and a world superpower making a digital camera aren't even in the same realm of possibility.
>>10498505
>So?
So they said something that was wrong and
I offered a counterpoint. fuck off
>>
>>10497751
China doesn't know how to make anything themselves. They just copy Japan and USA.

File: ai.jpg (30 KB, 968x681)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
How can we expect AI to have free will, when we don't have free will?
16 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>10494510
Free will is an emergent phenomenon that starts when a consciousness is able to modify itself away from the default settings. This is barely possible if human. AI shouldn't have that problem.
Ok?
>>
>>10494512
>>10494526
this and this, OP you're a fag for making this thread
>>
More importantly, how can we expect AI to have shpiftlitzekleptuz when humans don't even have shpiftlitzekleptuz?

See, I can use words that don't mean anything too.
>>
>>10494595
That gif is so unsatisfying
>>
>>10494510
Your question is fucking stupid. If we don't have free will, then we can't expect AI to have free will. If we do have free will, then we can expect AI to have free will. No one is claiming that we dont have free will but AI can have free will. Some people claim that we have free will but AI can't, and those people are just as retarded as you.

File: 14868278272.gif (2.42 MB, 320x240)
2.42 MB
2.42 MB GIF
>computer "science"
55 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>10498223
deep
>>
>>10495904
Math
>>
>>10498002
>board name made the definition, not the other way around
hurrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrr
>>
Computer SCIENCE deals with things like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory

There's much more, like Turinc machines and relational databases to think about especially if you go to scientific papers level.

By no means it's not just learn2code lol or how2excel.
>>
>>10498511
No shit. This guy is on the faculty at the IAS next to people like Ed Witten: https://www.math.ias.edu/avi/home

BS and PhD in computer science, not math. Bet this really chaps the ass of the retards in this thread.

File: neil-degrasse-tyson.jpg (409 KB, 900x507)
409 KB
409 KB JPG
Are high IQ black people just as likely to have high IQ children as high IQ white or Asian people?
21 replies and 8 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>10495078
The heritability of IQ and traits in general is mostly pseudo-scientific assumptions and inferences from epidemiology.
>>
>>10496683
>>
>>10497970
Not him, but I personally hate and wish for the destruction of both sides of this dialogue.
>>
>>10495078
>high IQ black people
Literally don't exist rofl.
>>
>>10495478
Yes, actually.

File: NYC.jpg (1.8 MB, 3865x2576)
1.8 MB
1.8 MB JPG
How much damage can a hurricane do to New York City? Would it have any effect on the big buildings?
3 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>10497809
All basements flood. I'm sure it'll be just fine if everyone ignores it. No problems.
>>
>>10497809
The buig buildings are rated to survive hurricanes. For a good example of an engineering fuckup look up the citibank building in NYC.
>>
>>10497922
>survive hurricane
>don't survive fire
hmmmmmmmmmm
>>
>>10497812
Nope
>>
>>10497809
this happened a few years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Hurricane_Sandy_in_New_York

File: 1553573187215.jpg (69 KB, 562x530)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
What do you use to look up facts mid debate?
I go for google scholar and arxiv. Google usually directs me to dogshit articles.
>>
>>10498481
>mid debate?
>not being prepared going into an argument.
Maybe you shouldn't be arguing your position in the first place?
>>
>>10498492
Its not one of these debates but rather a spontaneous debate btween friends.

Is there a scientific way of doing your work? Besides people just saying "Just do your fucking work".
>>
>>10497260
Look up Frank Gilbreth. Basically minimize nonproductive actions, optomizing work flow and your workspace.

well?
35 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>10492574
lambda-cdm
tl;dr
https://youtu.be/zO2vfYNaIbk?t=50s
>>
>>10497675
Maybe so but the fractal flow of the multiverse, eternal inflation being a feature of, is eternal in time and infinite in scope.
>>
>>10492574

If we talk about causation, we can only work backwards to get to anything resembling an answer. In fact this is the only thing we can do. Any metaphysical speculation about anything preceding being itself--- has no real basis in actuality. Ultimately, we will end with a tautology as far as our reasoning can go.
>>
>>10497673
That's just what the quantum foam does. Its constantly boiling with virtual particle pairs that form and annihilate spontaneously because the vacuum has positive energy.
>>
File: 013019_quasar_graph.jpg (56 KB, 678x539)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>10492574

A previous Big Rip


Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.