Spzi

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

Spzi ,

There’s a famous hill-top cemetery in the city, and sure enough I saw basically all of my classmates there too

That was an unexpected dark turn. Glad you live to tell their story!

Spzi ,

That’s already pretty cool! It surely does generate very random numbers. I still think you can take it a step – or a random number of steps, hah! – further by repeating the process a random number of times! Maybe this way we can reach maximum randomness. Probably need to reroll the number until it’s big enough for that.

I would also check if the result is 4. If it’s 4, it should be discarded. 4 is not an actual random number but a joke random number from a comic.

Spzi ,

And group people based on how loud their snacks are.

Also, am I the only one hating that person who keeps talking how the seating is suboptimal while everyone else tries to watch the movie?

Spzi ,

That might be the unfunniest xkcd I’ve seen so far. It pretty much reads like a table “things which are so and so hot”.

Spzi ,

Is that in reference to the recent Chinese crash?

Hypothetically speaking, what alterations to our biology/genome would need to occur in order for us to be able to safely drink saltwater?

Could we, in theory, use something like CRISPR to give a new baby replacement super-kidneys (or whatever organ it is that makes drinking saltwater be a bad time)? It seems like if we cracked that, we’d be set as a species....

Spzi ,

It’s a good point, but desalination has the same issue. Whenever you use seawater to produce something with almost no salt in it (be it desalinated water or crops), that means the salt has to go somewhere else. Probably in concentrated form.

Desalination may not salt the earth, but brine can create dead zones in the water. There are solutions like diluting it, and there are cases of operators who don’t care. Either way, salt is an issue if you use salt water. Has to go somewhere.

Spzi ,

There are better ways to do this. Examples:

  1. Desalination plant provides town with fresh water
  2. Town’s waste water is treated before going back into the ocean
  3. Brine gets diluted into that treated stream

In theory, this could give and take the same amount of salt water to and from the ocean, while still providing desalinated water for use.

Another way to dilute brine is to add it to the ocean in small bits in multiple locations, so neither location exceeds a certain salt concentration.

SamXavia , to Fediverse
@SamXavia@kbin.social avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    Spzi ,

    There’s really not much we can do about it?

    Let’s just hope it is a function of size and that we’re still growing.

    Spzi ,

    Falling in is only “definitely fatal” if it’s too big. For all we know, black holes can be tiny and light. We can debate if you can still “fall in” one of those. Maybe the process is more like passing by, or some mote of dust sticking to your clothes.

    Spzi ,

    signs may only apply to the road after them, so you could validly stop just before it.

    My thoughts exactly; problem solved. Just do what the first sign says before the others apply.

    Spzi ,

    This was enjoyable to read. Nice flow and storytelling, especially in the first half. Thanks!

    Spzi ,

    I see you replace two “0” with a “0/0”, but why that? Since you assume it equals 1, why do you replace it for 0?

    Spzi ,

    x is in a superposition :D

    On a serious note, can quantum physics help?

    Spzi ,

    Ah, yes. Normally not allowed because undefined, but here you define it as 1. Alright, thanks.

    Spzi ,

    It’s economy of scale. A centralized building can be much more efficient than many individual houses. Big emphasis on CAN.

    It all depends on how wasteful people are at home, wether they commute by train or bike (or how much car trips they do while WFH), and how responsible the office is managed.

    The last studies I saw posted in Lemmy about this highlighted the nuance, while people jumped on the maximum possible saving as if that was real.

    Spzi , (edited )

    Yes, there are non-deterministic parts in physics. For example atomic decay. While we can measure and work with half-life times for large amounts of radioactive atoms, the decay of a single, individual atom is unpredictable. So in a way, you can get your desired dose of vagueness by controlling how many atoms you monitor. The less, the more.

    Or another example from the same field: There are atoms for which we believe they are stable, although they theoretically could decay. But we never observed it. So maybe they are in fact stable, or maybe they decay just slower than we have time. Or only when we don’t look. Examples would be Helium-4 or Lead-208.

    I also like the idea, inspired by Douglas Adams, that the universe itself could be a weird and random fluctuation, which just happens to behave as if it was a predictable, rationally conceivable thing. That actually, it’s all a random chain of junk events, and we’re fooled into spottings some patterns. This apparence could last forever or vanish the very next moment, who knows. Maybe it’s all just correlation and there is zero causation. As far as I know, we’ll never be able to tell. So fundamentally, all of it is a vague guess, supported by mountains of lucky evidence.

    (Edit: Author name corrected)

    Spzi ,

    It’s probably this:

    Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the Standard Model itself—the Standard Model is inconsistent with that of general relativity, to the point that one or both theories break down under certain conditions (for example within known spacetime singularities like the Big Bang and the centres of black holes beyond the event horizon).[4]

    My ELI5: Both theories work great, supported by vast amounts of evidence and excellent theoretical models. It seems they are two tools with distinct purposes. One for big and heavy stuff, the other for small and energetic stuff. The problem arises when big and heavy stuff is compressed into tiny spaces. This case is relevant for both theories, but here they don’t match, and we don’t know which to apply. It’s a strong hint we lack understanding, one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics.

    So math itself is probably fine, we’re just at a loss how to use it in these extreme cases.

    Spzi ,

    Oh wow, thanks for the details! 10^25^ years … no, times … yeah, crazy. I mean, that’s beyond homeopathic. Since I learned about this topic as an interested layman, I somehow assumed everything can decay, and we simply call the things “stable” which do so very slowly. Which can mean as many atoms decay over the course of a billion years as there are medically effective molecules in homeopathic “medicine”; none.

    Also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

    Spzi ,

    The joke here is that, because Americans do not use the term “autumn” in normal communication, someone might be led to believe that it had a special unusual scientific meaning.

    Spzi ,

    Very similar to finding a new home.

    Bonus challenge: Find a new home without a job.

    Spzi ,

    No landlords will touch me, a person with a GUARANTEED INCOME.

    However, if you have a job, that you can get fired from or quit the next day, they’ll accept you. Blows my fucking mind.

    Exactly, it’s crazy. Some even go further and require you to earn 3x as much as your rent.

    While I understand it’s a good rule of thumb to not spend more than 1/3 on rent … a good rule of thumb for THE RENTING PERSON, that is. Why would any landlord care if I eat oats or drive a lambo? As long as I pay my rent, what do they even care how much I have left?

    And since rents have been rising more than wages, satisfying this unecessary demand becomes increasingly difficult.

    Maybe it is because they are not rational homo economicuses. They find someone to rent their place anyways, so they can use their power to punish or reward people based on their societal ideals. Or simply have a say in what kind of people are allowed to live in that hood.

    In terms of kWh per kWh, by how much does greenhouse CO2 from running an air-conditioner heat up the rest of the Earth?

    It is said that ACs are counterproductive in fight against global warming, in that while they may make the local environment temporarily livable, the greenhouse gases produced while making the electricity needed to operate them heat up the rest of the Earth by much more than the relief from the AC itself. By how much exactly is...

    Spzi ,

    Electricity isn’t decarbonized yet, so it is a problem in practice. Exceptions exist.

    Spzi ,

    I just stumbled upon this video with a very similar topic: Can We Solve the Air Conditioning Paradox? (Be Smart)

    Relevant excerpts:

    • an estimated additional 2000 GW of electricity could be required to satisfy growing AC demand (6:40)
    • HFCs are the fastest growing GHG (?). At this rate, they could add 40 years worth of carbon emissions or +0.55°C (7:45)
    • Ideas and solutions exist (e.g. 10:30)
    Spzi ,

    If Earth’s mass were to double, all gravitational relations, including potentials, would also increased but it’s not exactly double as the equation should also account for the other body or bodies masses.

    I think the simple Newtonian version is: Break down each gravitational relation (A and B pull on each other) in it’s components: A pulls on B, and B pulls on A. If you double the mass of A, this has two effects:

    • A pulls on B twice as much
    • B pulls on A the same, but needs twice as much force to achieve the same acceleration (a = F / m)

    Area of gravity at the center of large, dense celestial bodies...

    I’ve read that at the center of large celestial bodies there’s zero gravity (or close to). While confirmation would be nice, if true, I’m wondering how large that area can actually be and moreover, does it scale up with more mass and/or even size - that is, does the sun have a larger center area of low (zero?) gravity than...

    Spzi , (edited )

    There is no area or volume of zero gravity inside planets or stars. It exists as a point, but since it’s a point, it has zero size.

    Go in any direction from that point, no matter how little. Now more mass is behind you than in front of you; you feel gravity pulling you back.

    Edit: Seems I was wrong, sorry.

    “If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.”

    Spzi ,

    If you had a planet that was hollow in the center*, the entire hollow region would have zero gravity. You could have a thin-skinned planet with the entire interior an empty weightless void. I doubt any planets like this actually exist.

    • Assuming radial symmetry. If you can represent the planet as concentric spherical shells then you’re good.

    I thought this was wrong, but it is true:

    Brb fixing my other comments.

    Spzi ,

    That’s exactly what I meant, yes.

    I’m not sure if it was correct though, edited my previous comment. Though maybe you did not ask about hollow bodies.

    Is it worth closing the lid on a toilet before flushing?

    This seems like something that should be true, but I think I remember seeing a Mythbusters episode where they decided it didn't make a difference. That show was more about entertainment than science, so I wondered if there was a more rigorous study done? I've definitely seen splashes of water(?) come out from flushes so that...

    Spzi ,

    The real question is wether it has an effect which matters. Does it impact your health? Does something get damaged by becoming wet? Things like that.

    I’m pretty sure there is next to no such effect. Which still does not mean this is the answer!

    I think the actual answer is to do what feels better for you. This has probably a much bigger effect on your health than actual droplets.

    If we have such a high field of vision, why can't we focus on everything within the vision simultaneously?

    Why is it that I am not able to read a book without moving my eyes if the entirety of the page is within my field of view? Why do I have to center my eyes on an object to observe it fully? And why is it that I am still able to view changes in surroundings in the edges of my field of vision despite there being supposedly no way...

    Spzi ,

    It’s a bit of optics, a bit of eye physiology, and a bit of how the brain works.

    Optics: Your lens focuses light on a focal point. For a sharp image, this point in space should be on the retina surface. Both lens and retina are not ideal geometric objects, so directions and angles can matter.

    Eye: As others said, the retina has different regions, with different amounts and types of photoreceptors. Some regions are good for a high resolution image of whatever is in focus, others are mostly used for peripheral vision.

    Brain: Your brain still gets all the data, from in and out of focus photoreceptors.

    Maybe it would be possible in terms of optics to focus on more than one thing at the same time. But retina composition and brain architecture are adapted to the optics which we have: One way to focus, and peripheral vision around it.

    With a bit of training it should be possible to mentally focus on image parts out of physical focus; mentally focus on something in your peripheral vision. You would mentally concentrate on a physically low resolution image (lower receptor density), it might be distorted (lens optics), and your brain might not be used to use data from these receptors for this task. So the result probably still feels like “I can’t focus on that”.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • All magazines
    •