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.

since it takes about 22 years at minimum before a person who is born can make scientific contributions, this is a hard limit on the rate at which we can progress.

>>10496220
>>10496220
Holy shit this post is a garbage fire
>electric cars
Invented in the early 20th century dude
>lithium batteries and portable electronics
Literally just improvements on preexisting technology
>MRIs are as revolutionary to medicine as antibiotics
I'd agree with this if radiographs weren't already a thing since the early 20th century but they are, so no. People still dont get them as often as they should because of the extreme cost. Artificial joints, heart valves, and blood genotyping were far more revolutionary and transformative to medicine and these were all invented 1940s-1960s
>muh graphene will create a revolution
Hasn't happened yet, nerd.
>CRISPR
Very promising but we cant make breakthroughs with it in the west because of paralyzing effects of ethics bureaucrats
>muh stem cells
Parapelegia is still a thing, nerd. I remember reading in TIME back in 2004 about how printed organs were right around the corner. I'll believe it when I see it but it's all just a lot of "potential" with no substance.

File: 1515302864304.png (27 KB, 645x730)

27 KB PNG

>>10496345
>Literally just improvements on preexisting technology

>>10496176
our progress in computing power alone is the biggest breakthrough we've had in our history.

File: 1550586072399.jpg (59 KB, 562x600)

59 KB JPG

>>10496379
>doesnt even address how shitty his other points were
Btw the worlds most advanced airplane by every objective measure was developed in the 1960s and we haven't been back to the moon since 1972. But yeah, we can hold a computer more powerful than that in our hands to watch porn with. Truly a redditor's paradise, gay space communism will surely come any day now.

>>10495912
>Yes, but there exists a single actual axiomatic system that's true.
"The fifth postulate is true and nothing you can draw will convince me of the opposite".

>>10496088
Saying "A thing must be true," is not the same thing as saying "This thing is true," you reaching retard.

>>10495912
All axioms are """constructed""" you fucking idiot.

>>10495942
>>10495953
gonna fucking respond? or did you finally realize that you've misunderstood godel this entire time
"For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system."

>>10495276
See, that's what I thought at first, but then I was reading about what exactly Gödel's incompleteness theorems said and I saw this:
>>10496359
>"For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system."
So how can a statement about the natural numbers be true but unprovable within the system if what's true depends on the system?

>>10496346

the ETHZ is not special in this case and the bachelor students are not specially "weeded" out compared to other unis

>>10496350
that's where you are wrong. only students who already belong to the top 20% even try to study at a top stem uni. there is a huge qualitative difference between eth, mit and what not student and someone studying at a random uni.

>>10496357

anybody can take the entrance exam for ETH, its not even that difficult and it is also not curved. medical entry exam is much harder to get into and is actually curved
a lot of the people who fail, do so because they swap their subject and/or never intended to complete the bachelor in the first place
not because they are being wed out

that's where your -30% pass rate comes from mainly
it's really not that hard to pass and enter in ETHZ if you do your work

>>10496364
Disregarding entrance exam, how are ETH courses compared to MIT?

>>10496385
he has no idea. he is a buttmad fasthochschüler

>>10495771
If your "other people" are all retarded fags (i.e. the general public of the USA) then the shit that companies will research will just become retarded faggotry. Hence, the collapse of any viable space colonization program in the United States and the proliferation of phones which are just shitty little computers. Now, the free market is probably better than the current USG forcing research funding; but a less insane government should be allowed to take your stuff for basic research in an authoritarian way.

>>10495771
Also there is an obvious limit to the reasoning that "what people find useful is good". I would like to see you live in a free market amongst a populace that is single-mindedly obsessed with, say, making better and better potato cannons and having all of the technological infrastructure being diverted to meet the public's demands for potato cannons.

>>10496093
Probably because /pol/ fags tend to be absolute retards

>>10496110
>collapse of any viable space colonization program
A viable space colonization program has never existed in any country ever, retard

File: index (3).png (22 KB, 356x392)

22 KB PNG

>>10495752
>>10495771
>Short term profiteering is the apex of natural selection

The absolute state of /sci/

File: 1546272257740.jpg (99 KB, 740x1110)

99 KB JPG

>>10493651
>I'm a very rational person and I still think this is all just a perception caused by an extremely powerful drug and not a real phenomenon

>Being rational == Being a materialist

This equivocation is rooted so deeply in the fundamaterialist mind and academia at large.

It is by no means irrational not to be a materialist, and think that an experience of something beyond materialism actually is what it seems to be.

>b-b-but materialism MUST be true.

And that is why you are a fundamaterialist: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf

>>10491716
No dude, it's like you expanding you mind, like it's a whole new dimension of understanding. Like you are opening doors to parts of your being that you don't even know, and letting your brain connect to the universe. LDS makes your mind expand outside the limits of your physical being, your mind becomes one with the universe. It lets you communicate with the universe. Like, you can "see" it, and understand it.
Even Steve Jobs said that the most important experience of his life was taking LSD.

>>10493815
>You didn't experience the same thing as me, therefore you're wrong.
Yikes, bro. I'm not that anon, but that's exactly how a hive mind tackles a situation.

>>10491716
This must be bait.

>>10491728
>inflated ego
It "killed" my ego, you must take life way too seriously.

>>10491755
>will not teach me anything
Have you ever tried?

>>10493651
I feel gyped, my clockwork elves just molested me

im gay btw if that matters

yes

how low?

There are also times I’ve come across something like this in real life. I can’t think of a specific example at the moment, but many times I’ve thought of a joke or a sentence that becomes ironic once you assume it to be ironic in the first place.

>>10495492
good question bro.
in naive set theory, yes it contain itself.
in ZFC, axiom of foundation banned that thing.
reminder that this set is not well-behaved set such as set in the Von Neumann universe. afterall you can think Von Neumann universe is the reason of why axiom of foundation is the current axiom. using that, sets stay "calm".
although we banned it as an axiom, "the set of all sets that DO contain themselves" does not gives any paradox, it only gives a little bit of anxiety.
although we banned it as an axiom, if you construct a mathematics with ZFC without axiom of foundation, it will be basically same. math outside of set theory never changed. some guy(I think it is kunen) shows that all the theorems of Rudin's RCA remains same.

>>10495492
BTW this is something similar called paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grelling%E2%80%93Nelson_paradox

Wouldn't it be easier to say that the universal set cannot be an element rather than stating that the universal set cannot exist. Both are equally as prosperous, but the first one is more along the lines of saying 0*x=0, just stating an arbitrary condition to a number or set (0) such that it allows for a consistent system. Im aware that this is a result of the distributive property of multiplication. Eg. (a-a)*b=0*b=ab-ab=0 since a-a=0, but the same time i cant help but feel my first proposed axiom solves all problems, simmilar to how we say 1/0 dne as allowing it to exist creates contradiction. Just say the universal set cannot be an element of a set.

>>10495658
Grelling-Nelson concerns if the word “heterological” is itself heterological; essentially just a restating of Russel’s paradox. They briefly address what I’m talking about here under “arbitrary cases” but don’t really go into it any deeper than I have and don’t have any sources for more info

>>10496304
I doubt any carrier is big/long enough to catch something the size of a booster, even with arresting wires.

>>10496250
everyday basedstronaut stream is the best quality, and 6.5k people watching the hopper, damn

>>10496355
Scenes when they already did some firing but nobody noticed because of how shitty the quality of all these streams is.

>>10496064
Honestly, at that point. I would just look at putting wheels on the rocket and having it land itself like a plane instead of trying to catch it.

File: heehehehehehehehe.png (168 KB, 1258x664)

168 KB PNG

ohohoohohohohohohoh

WHy does deep vein thrombosis moslty happen in legs?

>>10496150
DVT can occur at the arms too but they're harmless compared to the legs. It mostly occurs in legs because let's say after a surgery you have to stay in bed and basically you don't move your legs. Inactivity = plaque which evolves into a thrombus which at his turn evolves into an embolus and goes to the lungs producing PE.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183904/

Thoughts?

>>10496305
Most likely metaplasia, desu. It is weird, bloodwork seems okay and doesn't help with anything. As the article states, the cause is unknown and can't really link it with hep C or the consecutive cirrhosis. The cyst had old blood in it with muscle cells, so probably the bladder was damaged during the inguinal hernia surgery. Don't take it for granted, it's just speculation.

Am I considered heartless and callous if the sole reason I want to study/practice in the USA is to see all the GSWs, stabbings and other trauma that you wouldn't be able to see up in Canadaland?

>>10495714
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

>>10494768
>What do mean by lobby money? The subsidies to renewables are subsidies.
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
Subsidies: govt -> industry.
I never said scientists care about the industry. They care about their own careers.
I said it is in the interest of those lobbyists to fund scientists who are more alarmed than justified. That's a one way connection, they do not need to be in cahoots with the scientists.

>Swedish scientists
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.

>It doesn't, but this is irrelevant anyway.
Ok, now, I see we've gotten to the point of baseless assertions. 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. Besides, most of the swedish shift was founded by the private sector, because this is not a government problem, the carbon taxes we both agree on incentivize the market enough.

>On something else.
I don't know what to say. Do you want me to link everything again?

>LOL, this says Sweden subsidizes renewables. Prioritization refers to grid access, not government support.
They do, but in small amounts and with limitations.
>Then why is Sweden subsidizing renewables?
Because it is commonly but erroneously assumed to be a good thing. It is not.

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

>>10494768
>No, it simply says that it's climate change research and technology. Climate change research does not have to be about fighting climate change.
>It literally says "technology to reduce emissions"
You literally contradicted yourself. And yes, they did reduce emissions by 3 percent, which is laughable compared to the investment. Not to mention the huge difference in difficulty between supplying 0-25% of energy from renewables, to doing so exclusively. A lot of nations have done the first (at great cost), but literally no nation has ever achieved the second (except for a day or two).

And this is all beside the point because wind and solar investments are bad business by themselves. They were always bad.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05/if-saving-the-climate-requires-making-energy-so-expensive-why-is-french-electricity-so-cheap/#60d4ef6a1bd9
They cannot be used to supply any non-insignificant amount of energy with any sort of stability, and should not be invested in by the government.

>>10494820
Did not say that. I said that there's an incentive for renewable companies to fund science like that. I'm not sure it actually happens, never said I was. The incentive is there, and that's all I ever said.
The government doesn't need to be kept from doing anything because it is the bureaucrats' incentives that are against the carbon tax, not the companies'. I explained this in my initial posts. At this point, I'm not sure whether you didn't understand, or are misrepresenting my stance on purpose.

>>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.

File: ok.jpg (13 KB, 910x100)

13 KB JPG

the chances are much higher
don't reproduce anon

Only reproduce if you only have a high IQ.
Asperger's with intelligence = success in STEM.
Asperger's without intelligence = useless failure who'll probably waste away their lives on 4chan.

Why is one yellow and the others gray?

The process behind it is not well understood. All we know is that that's what happens.

>>10488013
You will find it devastating when you die at age 75, when you could have died at age 82 otherwise.

File: charles-darwin-approves.jpg (45 KB, 500x710)

45 KB JPG

>>10487974
It is evolution's way of saying, "I know your genes are shit, but try anyway."

Then evolution laughs behind your back with its chad bro friends when you fail. Again. Evolution is a cunt.

>>10487974

Because humans are social creatures and meaningful social interaction release all sorts of chemicals which have a positive effect on your body, that's both the how and why.

Now, if by "why" you mean "the reason we've become this way" that is complex but I guess it has lots to do with "people who were left alone were eaten by bears".

>>10494957
Yes, I have my own hypotheses. This is how science works.

>>10495719
What evidence supports your hypothesis?

File: provemewrong.jpg (82 KB, 1280x720)

82 KB JPG

>>10486114
> 2050
Peak oil raises price of oil, triggers worldwide depression. President Trump III urges calm, nothing to worry about.
> 2100
Oil and water scarcity effectively shuts down all global trade. Wal-mart closes from lack of cheap Chinese goods. The economy collapses. President Trump VI declares nothing to see. And martial law.

>2150
The Western World has broken into quarreling district-states. Population following the great post-oil famines hovers at around 2 billion.

Emperor Trump IX urges calm from his Fortress Trump Tower in the middle of Free Boulder.

>2200
Katniss Everdeen volunteers to substitute for her sister in the 50th Hunger Games. President Trump-Snow looks on.

>>10487117
intentionally misleading chart which totally misses the point and attacks a strawman

>>10490012
It has happened before.

BA in english studies
MSc in biology, in progress

BSc Computing Science
Simon Fraser University

>>10496224
How the fuck were you admitted somewhere to study bio with only a BA in english studies?

>>10495412
legit, rich people have a much easier time getting into these schools, the poor people who get into these schools however are commendable.

>>10496217
not sure what the fuck an "optics" department is, mate