• 1 Post
  • 91 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 3rd, 2023

help-circle

  • Is a functional government based on logic and compassion too much to ask/too cliché?

    Renters rights legislation with enough teeth to make present and perspective landlords, both corporate and individual, think twice before not taking care of a property as though they lived there? (Yes, there are stories behind this one)

    I guess a company that actually pays me what I’m worth (which I’m not even really looking for that much).


  • Ankylosaurs please. Give me an armor plated tank with a built in beat stick that could knock a midsized car several feet with a single swing.

    If we are going ancient life in general I will always pick Dunkleosteus. A swimming arrangement of thick bone plates the size of a medium bus with a set of Jaws of Life (Death?) for a mouth. The damn thing could slice through or crush literally anything in the ancient oceans and shallow seas. If it weren’t for the Hangenberg event Sharks and Orca would definitely be having some competition.




  • Adalast@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzFalling
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yeah, that’s why I used the heavy caveats. The wall produces an inelastic collision which will do WAY more damage as all of the energy is arrested rather than an elastic collision of the two vehicles in which a good portion of energy is spread between the two bodies as they separate.


  • Adalast@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzFalling
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    One definition for a “rate of falling” would comfortably be “the time it takes the surfaces of two free gravitational separated by some distance to meet.” With this in mind, the imperceptible but very real difference in the acceleration of the earth towards the bowling ball would become part of that equation, as it shortens the distance between the two from the other side.

    Think of it like a head on collision of two vehicles. You can do the math as two bodies colliding with opposite velocity vectors, or you can arrive at the same mathematical result (at least for some calculations) by considering one of them to be stationary and the other to have the sum of the two speeds in the direction of its original velocity. “Two cars colliding head on at 60mph is the same as one car hitting a brick wall at 120mph.” It is rough and doesn’t work for all calculations, but the idea is the same.




  • The issue is the “your” imagination part. That is a huge limiting factor. Just because you can create a facsimile of something that functions does not mean you can derive hereto unimagined variations of them. You are assuming that the simulation bends to your will and reshapes itself to make what you want to be a reality, which is not in the prompt. Actually, the prompt quite specifically says that physics and biology remain unchanged by your attempts, so there is no just making shit up, it still has to adhere to the laws of nature and physics. Try to make a dinosaur now and it would suffocate in minutes because the O2 levels now are much lower than when they were alive. Attempt to make a cell phone that exceeds the fundamental quantum limits and it will burn out in an instant, or form a microscale black hole and destroy itself, jury is out on that one.



  • I have this problem too. My wife gets so annoyed at things because I question things I notice as biases or statistical irregularities instead of just accepting that they knee what they were doing. I have tried to explain it to her. Skepticism is not dismissal and it is not saying I am smarter than them, it is recognizing that they are human and that I may be more proficient in one spot they made a mistake than they were.

    I will acknowledge that the lay need to stop trying to argue with scientists because “they did their own research”, but the actually informed and educated need to do a better job of calling each other out.







  • As an American and avid rights understander, it is not the 5th Amendment which this risks violating (which you did cite correctly), but the 4th Amendment, which guarantees protection from undue searches and seizures of your person, property, or effects. This is the whole reason for the warrant requirement and the reason you hear us bitching whenever something comes up that lets police or agents of the government acquire non-public access to information or property in a warrantless way.

    An example: the police are investigating Mary’s death and suspect you of having planned the murder in the Notes app on your phone, so they want to get into your phone. Without a court order (warrant), you have to give them permission. With the court order, you must give the passcode and/or unlock the phone.

    Now, at this point, if your passcode happened to be ‘I killed John02&’ you could argue 5th Amendment protection because divulging the information would incriminate yourself in the crime, or a different crime.