Anonymous ## Mod
12/20/15(Sun)19:55:56 No.7734126

Anonymous ## Mod 12/20/15(Sun)19:55:56 No.7734126

Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.

If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice.

If you want help with your homework, go to /wsr/ - Worksafe Requests.

File: 1618737521824.webm (2.89 MB, 1280x720)

2.89 MB WEBM

>>13783755
The combined explosive forces from the tank farm and fully fueled full stack starship will crack open the shells of all 50,000 endangered texas sea turtles.

>>13783768
>The combined explosive forces from the tank farm and fully fueled full stack starship will crack open the shells of all 50,000 endangered texas sea turtles.
if only

File: FCa9qYPWUAAXxEy.jpg (589 KB, 2048x1536)

589 KB JPG

Ariane space control room

>>13783775
prank call them and ask for Battletoads

File: YrYMceJgTG4XB6dh5yYqxL.jpg (157 KB, 800x530)

157 KB JPG

>>13783775
MCC-H is more kino

>>13783410
>The source has a caveat
It literally says the distinction is hard to draw. It's not a caveat whatsoever. You are projecting what you want it to say to make you feel like you are correct, nothing more.

>You just contradicted yourself, yes. It's pretty funny how
Not an argument and not a contradiction made up by your fee fees. Hilarious projection though

>Where?
>Where?
Not an argument

>>Your terrible e coli example you lied about and claimed was a "new species"
>Where did I say that? Take your meds.
Ok my mistake I referenced the wrong one of you retards who said the e coli experiment had novel traits/new species. It must have been in a another thread unless someone here deleted it. See it's not hard to admit.

>Then why are you talking about gradualism in the context of macro-evolution? What exactly are you trying to refute?
You claim speciation is micro for some random reason and now ask if I'm not talking about speciation then why am I talking about macro? You are getting dumber.

>"Speciation, novel traits, or whatever cannot be feasibly observed in a lab" is a list and not a description of speciation and novel traits.
More of your ignorant projection of course it's a list.

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

>>13783416
>he said Darwinian natural selection is unfalsifiable
Thanks for agreeing with me

>He layer said he was incorrect
He did not

>You should try it.
hey what do ya know I coincidentally just did admit I made a trivial mistake and referenced the wrong anon. It's still hilarious you are so pathetic you can't evendo this. Try and read the civil conversations I'm having with other evolutionists in this thread and maybe learn something.

>And when you borrow something you don't understand or know how to use, it can actually hurt you.
It worked out pretty well since you just admitted I was right so it looks like I must have understood it.

>LOL, you're the only one here driven by anger. You're incredibly angry that you're incapable of grasping the argument or refuting basic facts and logic. So you post these little excuses. Your lost, get over it. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Such continual projection.
Nobody gives these long pointless shotgun posts towards every post someone else makes in a thread unless they are angry. I'm already consistently just ignoring half your posts now because I don't even think about them aside from how hilarious they are to read. And already other people are asking me questions because you are bumping the thread so much. So keep it up. Don't quit.

>>13773646
You're being bombarded by retards such as myself OP, I didn't even bother to look at the other replies. it just boggles my mind that people like you exist.

It boils down to really simple mechanics, completely indisputable and very easily measured. If you can't accept that mutations occur, environmental selection happens and that genetic material propagates from parents to their offspring, then you can't be helped. Evolution is nothing beyond those extremely simple axioms, it doesn't require an ounce of faith and if you adapt the materialist worldview, you are capable of doing actual science and engineering, but those who don't will forever be a useless burden, stumbling blindly in the dark and getting in the way of progress.

Please actually read the fundamentals of the theory, it should take you 3 minutes max and you can probably find a childrens youtuber to read it for you with pretty pictures. You will feel retarded for making this thread, but that's just because you are.

>>13783618
>Yes. An extremely low, negligible chance I would say.
Yes, based on our understanding is key though so I hope you caught on to that. It's not simply negligible odds due to lack of evidence.

>>one can't prove a negative,
>By a negative you mean the lack of the presence of a thing?
Not being able to prove a negative is a pretty ubiquitous introductory concept in logic so I think you'd be better off just looking up articles on it instead of me explaining it. Sorry.

>You must have some kind of reason to believe it takes some amount of time that's longer?
Tons. A quick one is just a comparison to what a mainstraim evolutionist claimed is the low odds of abiogenesis happening based on current understanding. He thinks, based on current understanding, it would take many many universes before abiogenesis would be feasible. He doesn't state this directly though, you have to understand the comparisons he's making.
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15

I think neo-darwinism producing complex life is an equally difficult feat as abiogenesis, so if abiogenesis is insanely unlikely then by default so is complex life via natural means without intelligent guidance.

>I think evolution could do unintuitively fast things
You probably think that bc society has tried to brainwash you into believing it since childhood, no offense.

>Also, it might not be that it always happens that fast. It could in principle be that evolution only rarely accomplishes getting to the point of (higher intelligent) life, but if it hadn't on this planet, then we wouldn't be here to see this (Anthropic principle), and perhaps on a planet where it did they would say the same thing.
I think countless eons would not be enough time. LIke if every star in the universe had a Goldilocks zone planet we'd still get shit for the lifetime of the universe. The anthropic principle is quite moot at that point unless you believe in multiverse.

>>13783733
>Not being able to prove a negative is a pretty ubiquitous introductory concept in logic
I don't know what you're talking about. If there is a system of logic that you can't prove so-called "negative" facts it is not a good model for use in the real world. Unless you think I can't have "proof" there was a negative blowing up of the sun yesterday. That is based on things we know, evidence.

It seems whether evolution would usually get to human-level that fast may not be actually the most important point of contention. I think Nick Bostrom has a paper that mentions an attempt at estimating something about how long it might usually take with anthropic reasoning.

I was also appealing to the fact that even if anthropic reasoning can be relied on to explain humans managing to exist in our observation, there are also unintuitively complex developments in other branches of evolution not needed that exist. Actually that doesn't imply it is because it evolved because that is even less likely to happen, but I still think the fact there are at least some things that have explanations that seem unclear at first means the possibility of non-evolution explanations are outweighed already.

>LIke if every star in the universe had a Goldilocks zone planet we'd still get shit for the lifetime of the universe.
I'm not completely sure how all of this works, but I don't think that part is true with respect to evolution after groups of animals have evolved, since if it's making a big demand on how rare of a scenario it is for humans to evolve past that point, there wouldn't be other relatively compared to it complex evolutions in unrelated branches of animals. Maybe the problem is getting to an earlier point, that of abiogenesis?

The paper I was thinking of is "Dissolving the Fermi Paradox" by Sandberg and others

>The anthropic principle is quite moot at that point unless you believe in multiverse.
Well, yeah. It's just taking the anthropic reasoning even further.

>>13779679
start with peano axioms and arithmetic

>>13779679
Since everyone's bickering about whether it makes sense to teach a kid like that so early, I just wanted to say that if you take that route and he does end up interested in the stuff, please don't abandon him to the slower pace of the school system once he's in it. My folks did that and it was basically the perfect recipe for a burnout
As for how I just got workbooks thrown at me, so idk if there's some better way than that
I like the Khan academy idea, could sit down with him and go through those together maybe?

>>13782162
I came here to post this

>let the hecking kiderinos be kids!

Yes goy! let your child's brain melt watching cartoons ad playing video-games while I teach mine mathematics and finance!

>>13783756
That's what I would do anon

>>13783615
>Christian would be a peaceful being if he wasnt attacked by semi autistic people.

Not sure I agree, mate. He sexually harassed Mary Lee Walsh and Megan Schroeder before trolls at Encyclopaedia Dramatica found out about him in 2007.

Before this he used to be bullied only by his babysitter who locked him up in a bathroom overnight, IIRC.

>>13783626
to me autistic children are the fat civlians from wall E. I believe that through the process of putting those with the mentality of hunter and gatherer into their designated role society will have nothing to fear. The true genesis of autistic people is the failure for them to compromise with farmer society instead of hunter gatherer brain. The start of the world and the way society is right now will make many kids have to transfer from how they genetically were designed to how the world is designed and many of those kids will end up autistic. Yes these have sources just look them up dont debate me. There is good people and there is bad people that are failed parenting it was never about genetics

>>13783021
It has been scientifically proven that almost all the genes related to cognitive development are only inherited from the mother because they come from the x cromosome and males only have one while females have two, just make a little google search.

>>13783727
That's just not true. The X chromosome controls dimorphism, i.e. how intelligence is distributed among the sexes.

>>13783050
>eugenic public policy does stuff like
this is where you are wrong. such a policy would be called eugenics, but a eugenics program could just as easily be nothing but propaganda to gently pressure people to consider their genetic worthiness before reproducing.
Anything you do to try and guide things is eugenics, its actually a dumb term because society is doing eugenics all the time by changing certain traits ability to attract a mate.
Eugenics is any kind of self inflicted selection a society puts on itself.

File: 1634731964051.png (119 KB, 585x638)

119 KB PNG

Hello anons, just have a question about solving this inequality for K (for the two roots).

My professor said that for the blue boxed equation, if we plug in K=0, then the inequality is true, which I agree with.

However, he then drew the graph below that and then said that the range between k1 and k2 also satisfies the inequality because k=0 so the interval between them that also includes 0 counts, where did the two roots k1 and k2 come from and how come everything between those also satisfies the inequality?

He then said to be extra careful because "this might not always be the case" then drew the second graph with his explanation there along with "this inequality isn't satisfied unless K is very large on the negative end or the positive end".

Any idea what's going on?

File: 1591567101645.png (1.06 MB, 650x800)

1.06 MB PNG

>>13783732
go to desmos, graph the parabolas, and look at which portions of the parabolas are negative.

>>13783763
or positive, in the case of the second inequality

File: 1634095805657.png (146 KB, 1916x907)

146 KB PNG

>>13783763
>>13783764
Oh crap that's really neat, thank you anon.
It's been years since I last touched inequalities and roots so I've forgotten everything

>>13783769
i think it would help your intuition if you actually saw the parabolas
also
>this inequality isn't satisfied unless K is very large on the negative end
>very large
that << is K<

File: 2E33E5C4-576C-4D71-8F4C-8(...).png (1.39 MB, 1242x1122)

1.39 MB PNG

>>13783448
>before science

>>13783454
Maybe they can get someone else to write things down for them. Do you have any other stupid questions? If so, take them to /b/.

>>13783454
>what if someone can't write, can they not be a scientist?
Yea obviously

>>13783469
Yeah before the scientific era.

>>13783291
If you can find some way to predict what's going on then yeah, pretty much

File: 1634101638297.jpg (362 KB, 1024x791)

362 KB JPG

>>13783273
I'd say roughly 70% of the commenters on Y Combinator's Hacker News would agree with that assessment and say it is a good thing. Average people cannot be trusted with full access to information because mixing that with the right to vote is too dangerous. Information to voters should be tightly restricted so they don't vote the wrong way.
This is significant because the bulk of the commentators there are movers & shakers in Silicon Valley. These are the people who have the power to control much of the information exchange in the population.
It's interesting that they never argue that these people whose access to information should be restricted simply should not be able to vote. They want those people to vote but only after their information flow has been controlled.

>>13783519
>simply should not be able to vote. They want those people to vote
Not the anon you're replying to, but this is perfectly rational as voting is (by and large) a placebo to cure the revolutionary tendency of large groups of unsatisfied or jealous people.

>>13783340
Lmao cling to retarded ideologies. Obviously I meant for the vast majority of healthy people such as myself, my retarded antivaxxer boomer parents etc. There are almost always edge cases.

>>13783515
This is why we are fucked, because most people (who wouldn't have 5-10 years ago) are starting to fall into those two categories instead of being mentally healthy adults.

>>13779958
>but they literally DONT want to hold journalists or public health officials to be held accountable for misinformation that is objectively more dangerous and kore dishonest

The UK just had a major petrol shortage the other week caused by the media creating literal mass hysteria. It's one of those things that is so unjust you wonder how it isn't actually a crime

>>13783536
Only if the public believes the elections are fair, both in terms of ballots being counted correctly and everyone being able to have their voices heard during the campaign before the election. Without these, elections lose their legitimacy and end up becoming a point of contention instead of unity. The plebes no longer feel responsible for the "elected" leaders and no longer feel responsible for the messes these leaders make. In such situations, revolution isn't only fired by anger at the leaders but also by moral conviction that democracy has been spoiled and must be restored. Perception matters quite a bit.

>>13781956
Industrial engineers have no street credit and get shat on by every technician and real engineer. But that doesn't change the fact that the career prospects are pretty good, as long as you're fit for the roles.

>>13781956
Kek
>engineer

>>13781966
Every single one

>>13782168
>Make a shit ton of money with an MBA tho, if you like managing wagies and pathetic 21st century "engineers."
Based

just get an mba

>>13783033
>I like the theory that time and space are just huge endless loops.
its all a matter of preference, there is just an much evidence to back up your particular favorite cosmology as there is suggesting the legitimacy of the big bang conjecture.

>>13782960
>When I type the question "What was there before the Big Bang" into google, it returns a lot of leddit and quora threads where many a 'scientists' proclaim
Why doesn't it bring up the Wikipedia article about it - Why is there something rather than nothing?

>How are they so certain of the existence (or better non-existence) of a timeless nothingness?
Not sure what and why you are reading this but you seem to be misunderstanding "timeless nothingness". Let me rephrase it for you: it's possible that there always was something and there never was nothing and existence just has to be with anything else (non-existence) being impossible. If "there was something like matter without time" then that's just the starting point, still without anything "before". I guess the Big Bang itself may be controversial, people only theorize backwards up to a certain point after the beginning/s.

File: hqdefault.jpg (25 KB, 480x360)

25 KB JPG

>>13782973

>>13783009
brainlet

>>13782960
>How are they so certain
Here's the problem, OP. Scientists aren't "certain" that it happened anymore than they're certain they're not living in the fucking Matrix. But this universe appears to have rules, and those apparent rules suggest that, since the universe has apparently been expanding for 13 billion years (apparently), logically all of these points were not-expanded back then. We can take the math down to immediately following the start of this expansion, but we'll never know what was before it, because the math (that we currently have) gives us no clues.

>>13781223
pointless suffering does not make one stronger. life is not lived for the struggle, that's a lie told by the haves to the have nots

>>13777737
I'm currently in CS but hate it, and hate the idea of programing for a living despite it being good money. Thinking about changing to either math, physics, or MechE, and was wondering if others have had a similar experience or done the same. MechE seems to be the most practical, however I love math and physics like an autist.

>>13783418
>>13782767
Actual cope. Take your doomer shit to another thread.

>B.S. in biochem
How fucked am I?

>>13783595
I'm doing Solidworks like 20 hours a week.
Half the time it's neat, the other half it's kind of a drag.

>>13782006
The absolute state of this board

File: Screenshot_20211023-18143(...).jpg (160 KB, 810x1298)

160 KB JPG

>>13781296

>>13781648
Women study social work and psychology they need a Mrs.

>>13781213
cuz you're dumb

>>13783475
i got a 790

elements ending with -um are not important

>>13782898
After the cold War fade out with all that naming autism

>>13782731
Ah yes, the gas Oganesson.

>>13782898
Fuck me I forgot that.
I'm in my twenties but I recall old posters in classes

>>13782731
Pretty much, it's pretty much blue skies BS, it's like trying to force two lego bricks to kind of work, sure it might, maybe it looks nice, but ultimately it's too unstable to keep it attached while it lives on your shelf

>>13783743
That hexagon on the bottom is pretty spoopy

>What are the chances of undiscovered life on it?
practically the same chances as saturn even being a real planet, i bet the saturn shills are also the type to believe in 'infinite' sets

>>13783753
>i bet the saturn shills
Wait...I'm not the first? Are Saturn threads actually a regular thing on /sci/?