Sodium_nitride
@Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
- Comment on The Texas man who shot a British woman after an argument about President Trump won’t face charges. The jury hails from a pro-gun pro-Trump part of the state, a legal expert says 6 days ago:
The Texas father who fatally shot his daughter after an argument about President Trump
What’s up with the headline?
- Comment on Just vibing 2 weeks ago:
Well the “multiple thin wires” technique (litz wire) is more complicated than just having multiple thin wires (you need to braid them in a particular pattern because the magnetic fields that flow through the wires act on each other as well). But it is absolutely used for mitigating the skin effect as well.
Power lines inside residential homes are an exception because the frequency isn’t high. The skin effect for copper at that point is about 8.41 mm.
Then consider this wire gague chart
Even the thickest wires for carrying 300 amps has a radius less than 6 mm (you can also see that the rated frequency is 125 hz).
If you want to calculate the skin depth, use the formula Image, where f is the frequency, p is the resistivity (copper - 16.78 nano Ohms), u is the permeability (copper - 1.256 micro Henry/meter).
- Comment on AI experts return from China stunned: The U.S. grid is so weak, the race may already be over 5 months ago:
The “genocide Joe memers” forcing the Democrats to be unrepentant capitalist mass murders who hate their own voter base:
- Comment on >:( 7 months ago:
Biased, politicised science is real science. Not the platonic ideal you have in your head.
- Comment on >:( 7 months ago:
That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.
Respectfully, this is a weak sauce excuse, and a completely unscientific attitude. Scientists do not establish arbitrary barriers between different fields.
These kinds of statements 99% of the time come from people who don’t even do science, and whose understanding of science consists of “take down data points, analyse data points, be neutral” (paraphrasing your comment).
In reality, scientific names are usually given to honor specific people. The idea that the community just gives names to people who discovered things is simply ignorant of history. There are literally cases of people purchasing name recognition. There are also cases of people being honored by having their name on a phenomena they didn’t even discover, or a unit they did not create (typical for units, which are standardised by committees and not named after people in the standardisation committee)
- Comment on Einstein-Landauer culinary units 9 months ago:
That depends on which side of “math is an invention” or “math was discovered” you fall into.
- Comment on Einstein-Landauer culinary units 9 months ago:
Information is physical?
Information only exists in the world in the form of physical media, such as computer circuits, DNA or electrical/neuron pattern in your brain.
- Comment on The Algorithm 11 months ago:
A time complexity of N to the power of logN?
I can see why someone might have a problem with that.
- Comment on Entropy? Never heard of it. 11 months ago:
Trees never evolved for the purposes of mass capturing carbon from the air as efficiently as possible. Yes, they convert CO2 to O2 as part of their life cycle, but algae and other organisms have a much bigger role in capturing CO2 and turning it into O2.
Furthermore, so much of the CO2 that we emit is CO2 that was sequestered in the past over those very same 100s of millions of years. Meaning that going the natural route will take that amount of time.
- Comment on ... 1 year ago:
Some academics became liberals after having flirted with Marxism. This is relevant why exactly? I mean, I can cite many great minds who remained Marxists and even advanced the theory. Ever heard of Paul Cockshott? Alan Contrell? David Zachariah? Emanuel Farjoun?
These guys (and some others) actually worked on Marxist economic theory and modernized it. They lived through the collapse of the USSR and remained steadfast in their beliefs. And I haven’t talked about countless other minds in anthropology, history, contemporary social studies and philosophy who have used dialectical materialism as a foundation to achieve great results.
And so I want to emphasize something.
every single one of them gave up and became an egalitarian.
Is blatantly and literally false.
- Comment on ... 1 year ago:
I can perform a completely independent experiments in my house.
And I can scream into the abyss, it’s just as relevant. The absolute majority of actually useful and relevant science is performed socially for social purposes.
I make a hypothesis that my stove can boil 1L of water in 10 minutes.
You aren’t even supposed to do a scientific experiment in the way you have just described. Or rather, there is neither a universally agreed upon scientific method, nor would your described experiment hold up to any standards.
An actual scientific experiment into water boiling would involve at the minimum
- A model predicting the speed of boiling based on relevant variables
- A collection of many data, and preferably corroborated by independent sources
- Statistical analysis of the data (there are many methods to choose from) to gauge confidence in the model.
- Publishing or proofreading of the results.
However, at each of these steps, you have a choice of how to approach the problem. And this depends on what you are trying to do, and what the best standards in the industry are. The process has also changed over time.
And this reveals the problem of many people’s metaphysical approach to science. They treat it as if it were a platonic ideal, or floating constant in the human minds pace. In reality, “science” is an industry with its ever-changing standards, culture, interaction with the rest of society, and a million other complexities.
- Comment on ... 1 year ago:
The broader field of academia and getting scientific papers published is more of a governance thing than science.
You cannot separate the 2. There is no pure science out there which can be done without “governance”.
- Comment on ... 1 year ago:
What the fuck are you talking about?
- Comment on Functions 1 year ago:
:( I don’t get it
