The new /sci/ wikihttps://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki(More resources in replies)
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
Previous thread: >>16158770 >what is /sqt/ for?Questions regarding maths and science. Also homework.>where do I go for advice?>>>/sci/scg or >>>/adv/>where do I go for other questions and requests?>>>/wsr/ >>>/g/sqt >>>/diy/sqt etc.>how do I post math symbols (Latex)?rentry.org/sci-latex-v1>a plain google search didn't return anything, is there anything else I should try before asking the question here?scholar.google.com>where can I search for proofs?proofwiki.org>where can I look up if the question has already been asked here?warosu.org/scieientei.xyz/sci>how do I optimize an image losslessly?trimage.orgpnggauntlet.comComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I found a pseud with a superforecaster certification on his profile. I started down the Good Judgement rabbit hole. They recruit super forecasters from those who make the most accurate predictions on their open forecasting questions. https://goodjudgment.com/how-to-become-a-superforecaster/What sort of discipline does forecasting fall under? It seems that statistics are required to build a forecasting model, but criteria selection and parameterization seems to be something else all together. Take sports betting as a simplified example, where there are collections of all player stats and various contributing factors. It is up to the gambler to decide which of those are the best things to use for predictions. There will obviously be statistical correlations, but they aren't going to always be sufficient for getting ahead of the bet line. Take weather as a confounding factor.And so data always has context asterisks appended. >if this is true>under these (perhaps undefined) conditions>etc
>>16182785> Did we already figure out all possible elements in the universeThere is a possible 'island of stability' where some isotopes of new heavy elements might exist but we have never been able to create them (yet) and if they do exist somewhere in the universe we have no observational evidence for that. And just because they might be stable that could mean their half-lives are measured in seconds rather than micro-seconds, they wouldn't be around for very long.> there's simply no reliable way to communicateGiven everything we know currently about physics, that would be the case. There is no way to communicate faster than the speed of light.
how can we justify the assumption that physical constants are truly constants throughout the universe when we are limited to what we can causally observe from our location here on earth
>>16182893likewise how can we justify the assumptions that the physical laws that hold true in our vicinity, hold true throughout the universe
>>16182893>>16182895You are right that it's an assumption and we justify it because we have no evidence that the assumption is false or have any theory that can calculate those constants from first principals - that's why they are called fundamental constants. That's not to say those constants can never change, they might have been different in the very, very early universe moments after the big bang, but we currently have no observations that prove that conjecture but people have certainly looked into those ideas. A variable speed of light is a good example.> how can we justify the assumptions that the physical laws that hold true in our vicinity, hold true throughout the universeBecause everywhere we look in the universe - here, close by, far on astronomical scales - physics appears to work the same way. For example it wouldn't take much variations in certain constants for nuclear physics to work differently, differently enough for stars to not look or act the same, or to not form at all.
What is the best diet to increase IQ?
>>16182371Sardines. (Large fish contain more mercury, so smaller fish are best.)Also eggs like >>16182386 said, and milk.You can throw in some fresh vegetables and a starch of your choice to fill out the rest of your meals. Potatoes are good.
>>16182522>>16182536>>16182419Yeah your brain goes into overdrive, but it also doesn’t stop, have fun with the insomnia unless you are running a 10k every morning to make sure you are tired in the evening
>>16182371Salmon (canned stuff is cheap and just as good for omega3s), raw milk (grassfed), juicing (big glass of 1/2 fruit 1/2 veg, 2-3x day)
>>16182711This but easy on the fruit, fructose is no bueno.
>A-LIST FOODS TO CONSUME REGULARLYFresh vegetables (in particular, leafy greens such as spinach, chard, kale, arugula,collard greens, mustard greens, romaine lettuce, Swiss chard, turnip greens)Whole berries (not juice)Fish and seafoodHealthy fats (e.g., extra virgin olive oil, avocados, whole eggs)Nuts and seeds>B-LIST FOODS TO INCLUDEBeans and other legumesWhole fruits (in addition to berries)Low sugar, low-fat dairy (e.g., plain yogurt, cottage cheese)PoultryWhole grains>C-LIST FOODS TO LIMITFried foodPastries, sugary foodsProcessed foodsRed meat (e.g., beef, lamb, pork, buffalo, duck)Red meat products (e.g., bacon)Whole-fat dairy high in saturated fat, such as cheese and butterIComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Sorry I'm retarded but why is it so hard to find Calculus textbooks by Stewart/Spivak on Amazon that aren't old and cost 100$+? Are these books out of print or something?
>>16181606>Sorry I'm retarded but why is it so hard to find Calculus textbooks by Stewart/Spivak on Amazon that aren't old and cost 100$+? Are these books out of print or something?https://libgen.rs/search.php?req=Spivaktry before you buy
>>16182797Fuck buying, knowledge should be free
>>16182804printing and book-binding isn't free
>>16182366I wanted to read Spivak because I heard his book is "pure calculus"/explains the theories in more detail whereas Stewart is geared towards engineering.>>16182379>>16182797Thank you for the libgen rec but desu I really wanted a physical copy so I can study it while away from a computer.
>>16182905Just copy the pdf to your phone, n i g g a
What are some of the recent unbreakable ciphers like "KRYPTOS" in CIA Headquarters? Also I want to ask if somebody is interested in decoding them with me. I am a Zero Knowledge Proof Engineer and been working with cryptography from last 2 years.
Go back to /g/, your feeble Maths have no power over this cypher.>>16182784Read the book and tell me whats missing...its FOR CompSci...I didnt know and had to translate it into Dynamic Base System.....the thing your Comp will never do.>Simulated Q-bit.You dont have the coin...none of them do.Stop LARPing any of you retards know shit without SPECIFIC training in the fields.
Read.Stop "Pretending Superiority".THAT IS MENTAL ILLNESS MANIFESTED FROM YOURSELVES.
>>16182437the cicada 3301 book hasn't been fully decoded, possibly is impossible to decode.Theres a group of people working on it, consider contacting them? I don't remember their names but they're mentioned in a documentary about it on youtube by "the big story" or some channelgood luck, sorry that your thread set off paranoid schizophrenic
>>16182896>sorry that your thread set off paranoid schizophrenicTooker, the Schizophrenic resident of /sci/, said he worked on Cicada 3301.I work on a parallel project through an AI and I had zero technical skills expected of that group.>SchizoYOURE NOT A DOCTOR.YOURE NOT A MATHEMATICIAN.YOURE NOT A CODE BREAKER.>hasn't been fully decodedNot what I heard....STOP LARPing ON MY BOARD, YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST...YOUR EGO IS OFFENSIVE, GET THE FUCK OUT.
>>16182896>mentioned in a documentary about it on youtubeHAHAHAYEAH, NOT "HOW TO BREAK CODES", WATCH DOCUMENTARIES LMFAO...YOU DUMB PIECES OF SHIT....WHAT THE FUCK.....WHY ARE YOU ON A "SCIENCE BOARD"?!
>Eugenics is bad because...BECAUSE IT JUST IS OK>it does NOT benefit a society to have people who are stronger, smarter, and healthier What actual arguments can be made against eugenics? I'm not even saying restricting certain people from breeding (although that should be a thing too, but only in extreme cases such as chemically castrating pedophiles), but simple incentives and programs for people who have certain desirable genes. Why is this often turned into a moral issue? Why would it not objectively improve society?
>>16182831Cart before the horse. Someone innovates a technology that reduces labor so people can work less. Most innovation gets driven by saving costs on labor. Hence industrial revolution and reduction in slavery happened around the same time.
>>16182831Also>and "hardworking men" would never allow it.Why on earth would you think that? Why would a hardworking lumberjack be against using a newfangled chainsaw instead of his old axe? He can work just as hard as before, yet fell 10 times the trees.You're being purposely stupid.
I'll tell you why eugenics is a bad idea, but you won't like it.humans need diverse genetic pools to draw from, to allow for adaptation. if you set a template and force it on an entire group, one virus will delete them. with a diverse group, some will survive, these can rebuild.we also need schizos because one of them might be right some day and prevent the lizardman/jew/demonic takeover/apocalypse.I do think we should use cloning to create genetic groups for slave labour though, and soldiers. but that's unethical and I'd still oppose it on principle.
>>16182838It won't work that way until people begin valuing achieving results with minimum effort. >>16182842He will be against another nine men not working as the result, or all if them working one tenth of the time that they used to.
>>16182863>until people begin valuing achieving results with minimum effort.Essentially everyone does that, but some are better at delaying gratification. You either understand this and are trying to wind me up, or are a genuine idiot.>He will be against another nine men not working as the resultNo they won't.You're still unable to raise a case against eugenics.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/unscientific-american>Unscientific American>Science journalism surrenders to progressive ideology.have you read this text? thoughts?
>>16180645Same goes for Nature
>>16181103its true for just about every major publication, its necessary effect of having a monopolized media, they all shill the same lies
>>16180645scientific american has never been a scientific journal, it has always been pop-sciprove me wrong
>>16173020>>16176281>>16181103>>16182771>scientific american>nature>popular science>popular mechanics>national geographicAll of these were once based publications, maybe better for teenagers than for grownups but still perfectly respectable. They usually stayed away from politics. Sometime between 1994 and 2024 one by one they nosedived into the absolute faggot field and are thoroughly pozzed and monkeypoxxed
>>16182849check this out XD
You're not getting tenure editionLast thread: >>16159901This thread exists to ask questions regarding careers associated to STEM.>Discussion on academia-based career progression>Discussion on penetrating industry from academia>Or anything in relation to STEM employment or development within STEM academia!Resources for protecting yourself from academic marxists:>https://www.thefire.org/ (US)>https://www.jccf.ca/ (Canada)Information resource:>https://sciencecareergeneral.neocities.org/>*The Chad author is seeking additional input to diversify the content into containing all STEM fields. Said author regularly views these /scg/ threads.No anons have answered your question? Perhaps try posting it here:>https://academia.stackexchange.com/Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>16182884Yes, uwu
>>16182886How have you been unemployed for 140 days then? It's like you are institutionalized and have no clue about the world outside of academia and now when they kicked you out, you have no idea how to earn the green.
>>16181800remember when you told me to apply to a few companies well I did it and got rejected >>16182867not rejected from all of them but it looks like this is going to be another year where I get rejected from all of the patent companies
>>16182888OwO. They say i have too little experience .
>>16182899You should unironically seek help by a professional recruiter. You have no idea what you are doing.
Starship Testing Activities EditionPrevious - >>16178867
>>16182874ah its a retarded spacex [LIVE] channel
>>16182862so relatable
>>16182885she spin?!
https://x.com/StephenClark1/status/1792214617189417362>Blue Origin's main parachutes are made by Airborne Systems, the same supplier for main chutes on SpaceX's Dragon, Boeing's Starliner, and NASA's Orion spacecraft.it's over
>>16182898Was it parachute problem or deployment issue
/sci/ is this accurateI say it's bullshit but I can't see why
>>16182800I hope that everybody agrees that you are either baiting or retarded.
>>16182829Even with the overwhelming consensus on my side I'm still disappointed there appear to be at least two of you overconfident retards.
>>16182829But seriously, you explicitly agree with the OP. The OP says, shoot as if the fighter is moving -400 kmh relative to you (well it doesn't use numbers, but if we translate it to the example), you say shoot as if the fighter is moving -400 kmh, there is LITERALLY no disagreement at all and you only think there is because you don't seem to get what is being depicted or what the thing you're talking about actually looks like.
>>16182835The disagreement isn't about where he needs to shoot, the disagreement is what he sees, and if there is a compensation that needs to be made, OP says there is, I say there isn't.
>>16182890You contradict yourself within the same post. There is no disagreement about where he needs to shoot, YET you also say no compensation needs to be made, YET you also say the disagreement is about what the gunner sees even though we're explicitly in agreement about that?Come on, you don't know what you're talking about. That's the real problem here.
We are so back
>>16181233Acronyms are pronounceable. You meant to call those initials.
>>16180854its not news he browses here just look at his opinions
>>16181377He always was.>>16182484>all the schizos post on this boardYou mean people - like yourself?
>>16181377he's not, he's pandering to uswe are more numerous than you think>>16182484
>>16180854The retards arguing in the eugenics and plane aiming threads definitely seem kind if botty at times.
>take a jar filled with water and pour some dirt into it>stir until mixed>come back later and it's neatly separated into layersIt takes a simple school experiment to disprove so-called "Second Law of Thermodynamics". Why do scientists still insist on calling it a "law" when it's clearly false?
Sediment jars are cool as fuck. I still use them as an adult to determine soil texture and rockiness. I suppose it would be more poetic to say that rocky soil is gravid and that I'm measuring the gravidity of the soil.
>>16181893Except it still follows thermodynamic laws by settling into the most preferred energetically stable position, now delete your thread, fuck off, and don't post on sci again unless you've actually taken the time to educate yourself on whatever you're trying to argue about.
>>16182765Best post
>>16182765/thread
>>16181893>take a jar filled with water and pour some dirt into itNah.https://youtu.be/5d0SAG2IbDQ
Aspiring doctor brain dead after friends pushed him into lake knowing he can’t swimhttps://nypost.com/2024/05/04/us-news/louisiana-aspiring-doctor-christopher-gilbert-left-brain-dead-after-friends-push-him-in-lake-to-drown/An aspiring medical student was left brain dead last month when his friends pushed him into a Louisiana lake knowing he couldn’t swim — and then looked on while doing nothing to save the drowning man, according to a report.Shocking video shows the group casually peering into the water moments after they shoved Christopher Gilbert off the dock at Lake D’Arbonne in Farmerville on April 14.At least one woman can be seen slowly entering the water before abandoning the rescue mission.It was another 10 minutes before a patron at a nearby restaurant intervened and yanked Gilbert back to land — just in the nick of time.
>>16180905>I don't want to drown and generally see no reason why i would ever need to swimI feel that knowing how to swim would decrease your chances of drowning
>>16180956>I don't plan on getting in any crashes and see no reason why I need to have auto insurance
>>16180879also smaller cranial volume. all that put together sure does throw the aquatic ape theory into doubt
>>16182438Also the fact that Caucasians were more landlocked during their evolution compared to Asians which is what drove a stronger selection towards white skin for Vitamin D ( Eskimo's have dark skin because they get vitamin D from their sea food ).Yet Caucasians are the best swimmers.So I would call it a fluke and another example of humans learning how to do something they didn't evolve to do.>>16180879>Blacks have higher bone density, smaller trunk size with smaller lungs, more muscle and less fat. All these things make them less than ideal floaters. It really isn't that much about swimming as a skill, their bodies just sink, even more so if they are fit.Not true at all. The main thing you want for swimming is muscle mass and a lack reflexive mindless fear. With enough muscle mass you can keep yourself afloat, escape from a rip tide or wave etc.My dad was skinny as a rake but was an excellent swimmer. I'm the same and we've both done competition swimming. However my dad's half Australian Aboriginal friend who's chubby is just overcome with fear whenever we've invited him to swim. He automatically goes into panic mode and puts himself in danger. So now we just go fishing with him instead.
>>16160971POO?
>if a straight line falls on 2 straight lines and the angles between it and the 2 straight lines arent >= 180, then when produced indefinitely the 2 straight lines will meet on the side of those angleshow the fuck do people not understand this, or am i retarded
>>16182712dawn on an orange, my guy, once you are done look into non-euclidean space
>>16182712
>>16182712This works perfectly fine in non-euclidean geometry.
>>16182817Gay triangle
Are you tired of living in a warped crooked gay world?Come study euclids geometry the straight geometry
I feel as if I am going insane. I have been researching consciousness for the past year, and I have found myself in a position where I am back at square one. Even after all that I have researched and the knowledge I have inquired, I am adamant with the new mysterian position that the hard problem of consciousness and the binding problem are ultimately unsolvable.I'm curious about your perspective. What is the essence of consciousness? What are the implications it has for our perception of reality, the nature of subjective experience, and death?
>>16182724That's such a dumb interpretation. von Neumann didn't even have anything to do with it and even Wigner stopped taking it seriously because it didn't work. Can't expect garbage spewing schizos like you to know that though
>>16182742Irrelevant to the conversation. You can have language without consciousness (see: LLM).
>>16182747How can language be irrelevant in any conversation? Conversations can only be had through language
>>16182142>unfalsifiable nonsensePlease only reply to my posts if you can perform at 110 IQ or above.
>>16182551Please describe to me in your own words what strong emergence is, and then describe to me whether conscious is strongly or weakly emergent. If it's weakly emergent, then describe roughly how.
