wolframhydroxide
@wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on One Angry Man 1 week ago:
The exclusive or killed me. Thank you.
- Comment on Apart, low in cholesterine 1 week ago:
That’s more like it.
- Comment on Apart, low in cholesterine 1 week ago:
Story time! Courtesy of my 7th–grade Biotech teacher:
Many years ago, he was working in a bio lab where they were studying the effects of drugs on the brain. Specifically, they were trying to isolate the specific paths and locations in the brain that these drugs would build up in the highest concentrations. That year, they were studying cocaine.
Of course, you couldn’t be experimenting with cocaine on humans, because that would lead to everybody having too good a time, I guess, and the federal government wouldn’t stand for it. As such, they were injecting cocaine into rats. Now, giving these little guys the time of their lives was still not the purpose of the research, so they needed a way to easily find out where the cocaine was going in the rats’ brains. As such, they tagged the cocaine. In order to ensure the tagging didn’t affect the binding and distribution in the body, however, they had to tag it, not with a dye, but by making it radioactive, at which point they could use whatever Magical Machine™ to take a 3D scan of their heads and find the radiation (though It’s possible he was simply leaving out the bit where they dissected the rat brains to find where they were radioactive, which I now think far more likely)
Unfortunately, aside from getting these rats literally blitzed out of their minds on a one-way-trip to the land of cheese and honey, no super-rats were created by what otherwise sounds like a plot straight out of an offbeat MCU movie.
No, the practical upshot of this was that it was some poor sod’s job to actually mix radioactive cocaine into solution for injection. Since they needed to do it a LOT, they needed a lot of solution. So, in their infinite wisdom, they had the following setup:
- a refrigerator, where they kept the saline and radioactive cocaine (and whatever else they were using to make the solution)
- immediately to the right of the fridge, a fume hood, where they would actually do the mixing.
- atop the fridge, two unlabelled beakers: in one, the saline, ready for mixing, in the other, the radioactive cocaine solution, prepared and ready for injection.
This was the point at which an entire crate of lab rats was toppled, releasing all of them onto the floor…
Of course, the entire lab is suddenly in chaos. One person is trying to use a net they had prepared for such an occasion to catch the rats that are running around the desk area, while two more are trying to tag-team a rat that ran behind a bookshelf. My teacher, though, is chasing a rat. A rat that is running straight for the cozy space under the fridge. With all the alacrity of a wastrel postgraduate who has never heard the term “dexterity” outside the context of tabletop games, he runs headlong into the fridge, and suddenly feels a splash on his head and the shattering of glass.
While it didn’t take too long for them to pull out the Geiger counter and determine that he was not going to get a supervillain backstory (with the high of his life and cancer on the side), you can bet they labeled those beakers after that, and kept them in the fume hood.
And that, dear friends, is how we learned about Lab Safety in my school!
- Comment on Apart, low in cholesterine 1 week ago:
As a chemistry teacher who regularly ignites Hydrogen gas, I cannot even imagine how dangerous it would be to ignite a hydrogen belch. That shit POPS.
- Comment on Apart, low in cholesterine 1 week ago:
Chemistry teacher here! Hydrogen would only acidify it if it dissociated. Much like how you can dissolve oxygen or nitrogen gas into water, any gas can be dissolved into water. They don’t break apart, they just float as molecules inside the water. It’s just like when sugar dissolves. Salt breaks apart, because it’s ionic. Sugar, most organics, and diatomic gases like H~2~, N~2~, and O~2~ don’t have enough affinity with the water molecules to dissociate (or, at least, not sufficient to dissociate appreciably)
When you get something gnarly is if you have a molecule containing something that does have stronger affinity with the water. Carbon Dioxide, Sulfur Di- and Trioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and other oxygen-bearing covalent gases react with water because the central atoms attract the oxygen in the H~2~O, while the oxygens surrounding them have partial negative charges from the unpaired electrons, attracting the hydrogens in the water. This causes the water to be ripped apart, creates oxyanions such as CO~3~^2-^, SO~3~^2-^, SO~4~^2-^, NO~2~^-^, or NO~3~^-^. Same goes for elemental Chlorine, Fluorine and Bromine. All of these rip the water apart and create the hypo- oxyacid and the hydroacid of the specie (e.g. Cl~2~ + H~2~O --> HClO + HCl)
- Comment on Apart, low in cholesterine 1 week ago:
Chemistry teacher here. No way do those hydrogen molecules ionize. If they ionize, that would require making the entire solution positively charged, or filled with singlet hydrogen. Just like dissolving oxygen of nitrogen in water, the gas will dissolve, but not dissociate.
- Comment on Anon witnesses excellent security 2 weeks ago:
Hence why I tell my employers that I’m good with h That option (see the last bit of the comment to which you replied) the problem is that this method of 2FA is not implemented commonly, and so most systems I’ve encountered bug out when trying to set it up.
- Comment on Anon witnesses excellent security 2 weeks ago:
And don’t forget required 2-factor authentication, in an age where that becomes 1-factor authentication as soon as someone has your phone, because both factors are accessible there!
2FA is utterly worthless in the age of smartphones, and whenever my employer tries to implement it, I refuse and tell them that, if they want me to do 2FA, they can either provide me with a work phone, or they can give me a USB key that is just going to sit in my desk drawer.
- Comment on Everybody gets one [choose wisely] 3 weeks ago:
You find yourself suddenly 3 meters up in the air, which is sufficient to change your personal gravitational acceleration by 0.00001 m/s^2. As you can imagine, it is not fun to fall 3 meters. You do anyway.
- Comment on Everybody gets one [choose wisely] 3 weeks ago:
That is, canonically, almost exactly what Saruman’s robes are supposed to look like:
“I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours…” - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
- Comment on Everybody gets one [choose wisely] 3 weeks ago:
Yes, unlimited access to universal truth, with error reporting.
- Comment on Everybody gets one [choose wisely] 3 weeks ago:
Fair. I would argue that “many people going insane” would be covered under the sacrifice clause, but hey, this seems like the best of all possible outcomes from mucking about with reality.
- Comment on Everybody gets one [choose wisely] 3 weeks ago:
One of the best shows in the history of television.
- Comment on Everybody gets one [choose wisely] 3 weeks ago:
I’d like to be granted the ability to, at any time and without limitation on scope, number, or length, ask the universe questions (asked in the dialect of modern english in which I am fluent) and know the answers, but with the following stipulations:
- that all answers are to be formatted and delivered in such a way that I understand them, without any changes or consequences that my current self (as of the writing of this statement, in my current condition) would consider a significant change to my physical and mental stability, and without requiring more than 3600 metric seconds (relative to my worldline) to understand in fullness, and being delivered in a timeframe of less than 3600 metric seconds (relative to my worldline).
- that any redactions due to such stability concerns as in the prior stipulations are to be formatted and delivered as part of the reformatted answer
- that any answer which is inherently unknowable returns an explanation for why it is unknowable, formatted as an answer pursuant to the prior stipulations
- that no answers pursuant to the ability lead to circular logic
- that this ability, its answers and enabling factors shall not require a sacrifice which my current self (as described above under my current circumstances when informed of the context of the sacrifice in plain English communication) would not think reasonable.
- that if such a sacrifice is required, an explanation of the requisite sacrifice and the factors requiring it be returned to me, formatted as an answer pursuant to the prior stipulations
- that I am to be able to choose to transfer any of these answers to another individual of any species, and that the individual be able to understand the answers, so long as the prior stipulations on sacrifice and physical and mental stability are satisfied both for myself and the secondary individual.
- Comment on Everybody gets one [choose wisely] 3 weeks ago:
Is that still from Life After People?
- Comment on Since we're doing magic eyes now... 3 weeks ago:
I think I’d take bizarro world where chirality is wrong over the timeline I’m in, where the president of the united states is a rotting fascist mango and the world has at most 100 years before human civilaization can no longer exist.
- Comment on oof 3 weeks ago:
Some of those who teach do so because they actually enjoy it, find meaning in it. Wretched though we may be, some of us believe that knowledge has inherent value without application. A pity you’re so closed-minded that you reject the very idea of it. I have met more compassionate and caring people in the teaching profession (before I ever chose that as a field) than in any other part of life. It’s pitifully ironic to come into a community of science and disparage education. How sad.
- Comment on sardonic soup 3 weeks ago:
If you’re really looking to spit in the eyes of Death:
Mince some destroying angel and deadly webcap into a nice mushroom ranch, sliver some bitter almonds and untreated cashew nuts over a nice hemlock cress with some of the shaved hemlock roots mixed in with some thinly sliced manchineel apple and add in some belladonna berries on the top for additional sweetness. From what I understand, all of those actually taste pretty decent, so without the deadly poisons this’d be a bomb salad.
- Comment on Orb 3 weeks ago:
My hypothesis would be that, in order to keep that membrane taut, the internal salinity would have to be fairly close to the exterior salinity, otherwise it would shrink due to hypertonicity. That cytoplasm will probably just taste like slimy seawater
- Comment on Panama Proxima 3 weeks ago:
As it is written in the ancient texts.
- Comment on Since we're doing magic eyes now... 4 weeks ago:
These ages were created by NASA, though you can make your own by taking two pictures about 4-5 inches apart. Try going to the Parallel View community to see more
- Comment on Since we're doing magic eyes now... 4 weeks ago:
Yeah, try the wall-eyed version I posted as a top-level comment
- Comment on Can I lick it? 4 weeks ago:
Just like how lithium should be red.
- Comment on Since we're doing magic eyes now... 4 weeks ago:
I also personally prefer wall-eyed viewing, but these just happened to be cross-eyed originally, so I was surprised by the complaints.
- Comment on Since we're doing magic eyes now... 4 weeks ago:
Actually, I made a version for wall-eyed viewing in one of the other top-level comments.
- Comment on Since we're doing magic eyes now... 4 weeks ago:
Very strange, because I can move from this image of PCl5 directly to the honolulu image in the OP and it works just fine. Meanwhile, if I move from there to the “are you not entertained” image, it makes the images go into the page, since they’re wall-eyed images.
- Comment on Since we're doing magic eyes now... 4 weeks ago:
I’m glad it helped!
- Comment on Since we're doing magic eyes now... 4 weeks ago:
Yes, I made the second set. I have been looking at the originals since I found them months ago. Here, let’s do a test. jmol generated this image as “cross-eyed”. Do you agree?
Image - Comment on Since we're doing magic eyes now... 4 weeks ago:
Define “Cross-eyed”. I get the impression that your definition is not the same as mine. Cross-eyed viewing is specifically shifting your eyes so that they would be focused on an object closer to you than your screen. Wall-eyed viewing is the term used for shifting your eyes so they would be focused on an object behind your screen. The originals above, as the text in the original NASA photos says, require you to cross your eyes. The images I have posted in this top-level comment require you to look through the screen at the wall. I don’t know what else to tell you. You’re just wrong. I’ve been doing this for fifteen years. The US Government has been doing it since the second world war. I think that, given that the current administration is made up entirely of cross-eyed imbeciles, we can probably take their word for it that something is cross-eyed?
But, since just telling you to read the things I have already posted didn’t work last time, take a look at the difference between the CrossView and Parallel Viewing (wall-eyed) communities here on Lemmy. If you still don’t believe me, I cannot help you.
- Comment on Since we're doing magic eyes now... 4 weeks ago:
I promise this isn’t a troll. In your case, it may be that your eyes are having difficulty focusing on nonexistent objects. If they’re blurry, it’s not that your eyes aren’t crossing, but rather that they are out-of-focus. Eyes naturally focus the lenses to bring near or distant objects into clarity, but when I was first doing magic eye images a long time ago, it also took me a while to convince my eyes that they needed to focus on the images.
My guess is that, since the actual images are on the screen at distance A, but your eyes are crossing as if they’re looking at distance B, your eyes are auto-focusing for objects at B, but the images are still actually at A, so they appear out-of-focus.
