We're doing a sequel, we're back by popular demand!
>>16900283srs business
>>16903209Canada is pretty doomed
>>16900776Cute!
>>16898960wait...nah probably a coincidence https://www.wane.com/news/possible-las-vegas-biological-lab-may-be-linked-to-illegal-medical-lab-in-california/
>>16900420>even though they did nothing wrongThe NAP has been spitroasted.
you have doubts, scientist? experiencehttps://www.ssssahitya.org/discourses/1993/realise-god-through-experience
>ssssahitya>india nameEnough for me to discount this as nothing but the usual hindu or buddhist mystic trying to co-opt the sciences into their deranged religion.
Early galaxies that appeared approximately 200 million years after the big bang were almost entirely consisted of Hyper massive "Blackhole stars" stars with 100,000 to 250,000 solar masses with a blackhole as its core. The remnants of these stars are the supermassive blackholes we find at the centre of galaxies today.
The space shuttle Challenger disaster was 40 years ago today.What do you think this space program would be like if it never happened?
Apollo 13 was great, why shouldn't Tom Hanks fly on STS-51-L?
Ah, what could have been...
>>16900917completely the same.
>>16900984
>>16901072I was there for both of them. sitting in my airframe and power plant class. some guy stuck his head in the class room and said "the space shuttle (challenger) just blew up". no one believed him.
scientists believe your brain edits reality before you're aware of it in a way that you never experience raw reality; only a delayed, curated version of it
>>16901422>you interpret reality as best as you can.You have a bad mental model. There is no inner reality which is being interpreted from an outer reality by your brain. You are reality being synthesized exactly the way it needs to.
>>16900988Nobody’s stopping you.
>>16897048This was the one expirmenet that completely annihilated my belief in god and free will.The first time i read about it i was completely distraught.Another neurologist called Jose Manuel Delgado had similar expirmenets
>>16903603You're too stupid and impulsive to even lie convincingly. These types of experiments are a dime a dozen, they don't prove anything and never actually change anyone's mind except for helping low IQ people rationalize preexisting doubts they don't acknowledge.
>>16897048https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iNMxjxL7k
Is economics a legitimate science? Or is most of it made up bullshit with no basis in reality?
I'd say things are going well enough in SEA that a lot of the core theories hold true.Value chains, demand vs supply, etc. A lot of the academic work was funded by larger banks, as a means and as a tool to get control over inflation and loaning risk. So by this point anybody who can do basic math and a bachelor in economics will have a solid understanding of how inflation works in all its form, including how the Spanish gold rush impacted European gold prices, or how Rome without understanding inflated its coinage and trade vouchers. So economics is a traditional form of trying to validate how wealth is actually created, and the supply chain it entails. But its also a validation of fiat money, and a lot of rather questionable practices that can only work due banking secrecy laws(which is again validated by the various forms of state monopoly daylight robberies). This is contrasted by things like World Bank and Austerity, or how non local ownership works vs Private Equity. At every stage there is also a rational actor who could decide "fuck you, I got mine" and then try to poison the well as a exit position. Similarly countries has a problem where the idea is that the service economy scales better, but the truth is that it only scales on existing resource extraction(primary and secondary), meaning India is still dependent as a outsource target to have a functional economy due a lack of internal economy.
I would be more satisfied with my life if it was.t. Econ
>>16897559good luck predicting when Mr. Money bags feel like taking all the investors in a wild ride
>>16897559It is a real science, but some parts of it are the equivalent of building an entire science out of trying to model and predict the turbulent flow behavior of specific ocean currents that are affected by other turbulent currents. Those parts of economics are inherently a nearly-futile effort, but economics is just so important on everyone's lives that we dedicate a ton of effort towards it anyways cause any progress has huge repercussions.Also, other parts of economics depend on psychology, so that gets fucky too.Economics can basically be described as the study of the largest clusterfuck humanity has ever created.
>>16897559it's closer to pseudoscience than science.some of the researchers are alright epistemologically but they're the minority and usually dismissed by establishment.most of the models are based on ideology-affirming assumptions from the jump. unironically more of an "activist" """science""" than sociology; the only difference is there's a lot more money in getting economists to tell politicians what you want them to hear (namely that "private markets will solve all problems so please give corporations all the material assets of the state for basically free, also don't make laws preventing abusive and excessive exploitation of your citizens pretty please").>>16900235demand curves are kind of silly as a concept. even in the simplest models it was a foundational mistake to act like price was the dependent variable and not demand - "price discovery" requires either the nonexistence of time or literal retrocausality, because you cannot mathematically use an optimization function on a target that constantly changes. the only thing actually discovered is demand at a given price, because realized demand is the material result of exchanges.but if you want to pretend that markets are efficient and that "free" market competition is optimal (ignoring for the moment the need for a stable state to facilitate a market, since outright theft always has higher ROI AND provides a greater competitive advantage, making it optimal at all times), you need SOMETHING to look like it limits the ability for price gouging without direct regulation to that effect. otherwise the optimization function drives price to infinity by cornering supply, completely irrespective of realized or even hypothetically realizable demand.ergo, price had to look "optimized," actual mathematics be damned.
is the diagonal argument intuitionistically valid?
>>16900293I tried reading it 10+ years ago and found it interesting, but wasn't very logic pilled back then and didn't get far. Similar with some proof theory books that discuss fol+finite types.I also picked up Weyls Kontinuum, the ACA0 books, but even if I find weak systems weakly appealing, tracking syntactic aspects of your predicates is super painful. Still I am always interested if any theory has a good model of SOA, because the axioms are so few. Even if we use those syntactic sensitive Comprehension axioms there.
>>16899466[math]sheeeeeiiit[/math]
>>16899466That is a retarded way to write x < 2^x.
>>16900535yep
[math] \left| \{0,1\}^{\mathbb N} \right| = \left| \omega_2 \right| [/math]
If so, why is that?
>>16867396Intelligence wasn't needed in Africa. All they needed to do was fuck and hunt.Europeans had to plan for the future or die in winter.
>>16867396Yes. But they’ve retained their souls while white people have lost theirs.
>>16873241>From all my knowledge live in Africa is tough shit.>The question that disturbs me (among other questions to African people) is why don't they invent??I don't understand how you managed to be smart enough to hold both of these ideas in your head, and yet somehow also retarded enough to fail to realize that B contradicts the idea of A given that necessity is the mother of all invention.Are you half-black?
>>16878541If this were true, what you would expect to see is that all races in orphanages would show equally less IQ, then for those to go up with adoption. You do see part of that, that orphans that have spent longer than 24 months in the system are on average ~84 points. However, when you separate those studies into demographics, even then, and even though the few studies focusing on that are "controversial," they all point to the same result: The white orphans average around 90-100 points, whereas the black children average around 80-85 points. Both groups do show that there is a general increase in average IQ once the child is adopted, and that the IQ points increase based on how soon they get out of the system, but even with these involved, there is always a stark difference between whites and blacks at every step of the way.I can see why you would come the conclusions you did, but at the end of the day, there is still a racial disparity.For the sake of argument though, let's say you find the PERFECT data that contradicts what I found above, and it's solid and airtight and it really is just about parents you love you giving a fuck that affects your IQ: I would still argue at that point that if blacks were that easy to systematically destroy in all countries, including their own, and failed to adapt to our system of loving your children and giving a fuck like every OTHER single race has managed to do here, especially the Asians, then I'd argue that they were still less intelligent as a race outside of IQ.
>>16903161Worst bait so far itt
Hello, Im the anon that has been posting questions about combinatorial problems from time to time. If someone could explain to me a solution to this one it would be very nice, as it is important for later exercises and there is no answer for it.My intuition led me to think that we are counting the number of ways one can choose a president, vice-president and a team for them to lead, with the nuance that the president can also be the vice-president, but I deeply feel like that is wrong. The exercise is from the book "a walk through combinatorics", chapter "the binomial theorem", under Quickcheck.
>>16903224>>16903226Obviously, I didn't finish the thing.HoweverIt follows that the expectation value of [math]k/2[/math] (in other words, average) should be[math]n/2[/mathThus[math]\sum_{k=0}^{n} k\binom{n}{k} / 2^n = n/2[/math]I think something similar should work for [math]k^2[/math]
>>16903228That's for even [math]n[/math].For odd would be [math](n+1)/2[/math] although I didn't think of it.Anyway, I think that what OP wants to do.
>>16903228>>16903230Nah, [math]n/2[/math] is the correct answer, I checked using the binomial expansion and taking derivative of it. After all, average could be fractional.
[math]k^2\binom{n}{k}[/math] = [math](k(k-1) + k)\binom{n}{k}[/math] = [math]k(k-1)\binom{n}{k}[/math] + [math]k\binom{n}{k}[/math] = = [math]n(n-1)\binom{n-2}{k-2}[/math] + [math]n\binom{n-1}{k-1}[/math] = = [math]n(n-1)\binom{n-2}{k-2}[/math] + [math]n\binom{n-1}{k-1}[/math]If you then sum over k, you get[math]n(n-1)2^{n-2}[/math] + [math]n2^{n-1}[/math] = [math]n(n+1)2^{n-2}[/math]
>>16899664If you think about how the product rule of differentiation works for a product of monic linear terms, it is as if a "timeline" is generated for each way to "kill" one term of the product.The "timelines" are implicitly indexed by which term was killed.(x^k)' = 1*x^(k-1) + x*1*x^(k-2) + x^2 *1*x^(k-3) + ... + x^(k-1) * 1=k*x^(k-1)multiplying by x afterwards "revives" the "killed" term in each timeline. The effect of xD just generates a timeline for each term of the product with an implied index (the distinguishment) corresponding to which term was killed then revived in that particular timeline.I hope it is easy to see how (1+x)^n enumerates the subsets of {1,...,n}.Once you can see the matrix code, algebraic and combinatorial aren't really different adjectives.
Hey /sci/,I was doing some research on Moth olfactory sensitivity, and then I pivoted over to canine olfactory sensitivity as one point of comparison for perspective.I saw the results from pic related, and it stated a range of 1:10^17 and 1:10^21.Am I wrong in assuming that the range presented there is fucking massive, and isn't exactly anywhere close to a definitive experimental result? I'd assume that whatever funding they got to perform that experiment and deliver those results would be considered a failure due to the sheer variability of the results, or rather a result of excessively flawed methodology?
>>16903295>different dogs,Or different tests. Individuals vary as well and don't always perform the same. Personnel best are not averages
>>16901936Instrument sensitivity, ability to create a consistent smell density, variation in the smell density due to animal breathing and the animal's physical distance from the smell emmitter and geometry of the animal's olfactory organ. Plus animal varriation is a huge factor. Even in model organisms each individual will have a slightly different response and this can be magnified by the animal's age.You wouldn't be surprised to learn that two children who are the same age had different smell sensitivity, so you would expect with a large number of test subjects the smell sensitivity would be a predictable range in a bell curve or more complex curve that suggests there may be different types of smellers.
>>16901936Just diluting 1:10^21 is really shaky. You could measure up 1 cm^3 fairly reliably with an uncertainty of 1:10^3, perhaps 1:10^4.Dilute that in 1 m^3 (water, I guess) and you have 1:10^9 - but that assimes no uncertainly in measuring up 1000 liters (doubt). So you have to extract a new 1 cm^3 from this dilution, again fairly reliably with an uncertainty of 1:10^3, perhaps 1:10^4 but put together with the previous uncertainty you are now 1:10^2 - 1:10^3 and now your dilution is at 1:10^18 so you need a third stage.At this point your experimental uncertainty is really dubious.
>>1690193617-21=4The difference is only four. You probably have more fingers than that on one of your hands. Touch grass.
>>16903393Not how dilutions work
How often can you take IQ tests to not train your brain to solve them
>>16903424Not really relevant. A normal person would take such a test 2-3 times tops. Your score is based on the performance of the general population. If you want a meaningful score, you shouldn't take this test more times than the general population.
Steampunk bros, it's so overhttps://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id=139989
>>16902734how is this bad? any random retard will be able to buy supercritical CO2 generators for cheap. now not only we well be able to produce energy with solar panels, but also with one of the many ways of boiling water.
>open page>"China...">close page
>>16903119>china bad because... just, it's just bad, ok??!1
What is your opinion on summer learning loss? Is it real and impactful or just a meme created to give students more homework?
Smart kids will always be smart and the dummies will always be dummies. There has never, ever, EVER been one single dummy who became smart because of a good teacher's influence. So yeah, "summer learning loss" is not anything worth being treated seriously.
>>16902607Might as well abolish any form of holidays or weekends, so forcing students into permanent work readiness since this has become normal in some parts of the economy.Isn't it wonderful to get up at 6 in the morning because of a group meeting with your boss where you spend the first 10 minutes warming up, then repeating your company's motto only for it to end in meaningless babbling because your boss is a retard?
The elementary school in a shitty area I lived in experimented with year around school. It was something like six weeks of instruction followed by a two week break. Students who fell behind during the six weeks would attend class during the two week break in order to catch up with the rest of the class. The school claimed it had great results but this was around the time of a massive cheating scandal in the school system, so it's difficult to know if the six on/two off system worked well or not.In theory, it sounds like a good system as it keeps students from falling a whole year behind if they fail something but students who are slower learners pretty much never get a break.
If someone loses a skill in 2-3 months, they never had that skill to begin with.
>>16902607Why do they insist on having schools replace good parenting? If their families and environments are good at motivating the kids or at letting them learn, the kids will do well; of they aren't, the kids will suck anyway. Let kids AND the teachers have a rest, FFS.
Best /sci/ related websites?
>>16903108phys.org is a good site for news, I guess, though it usually leans too much on the side of passing every news piece as truthI also like NASA's APOD.
>>16903108I think you will find tons of very good (free) sciences websiteshttps://fmhy.net/educational#science-math
As of the past couple of years, science communication headlines and pop-sci rhetoric have become increasingly and blatantly arcane. Notice how often words such as "illusion" are used. We are told that such and such phenomena aren't actually, really foreal real. We are told that our experiences of space and time - or physical reality itself - are "controlled hallucinations". "Simulation" theory is just a particularly computer-science-flavored variation of a much more general trend.Many people within the more woowoo regions of the intellectual landscape seem to be very eager to see this as a concession of some sort; "Ah yes, finally..." they declare, "the scientards are finally wising up to the realization that physical reality isn't really real and that the really real reality is actually a world of [insert consciousness, spirit, quantum energy or whatever] which isn't actually visible to human perception!" Such morons believe that it is actually a positive thing that science is so unapologetically abandoning its final pretenses of actually being **empirical**, because their own woowoo beliefs are equally non-empirical, meaningless clickbait garbage. What we are seeing is not science on the verge of reconciling itself with consciousness. What we are seeing is science on the verge of becoming a disgraceful parody of itself and religion simultaneously - which is, to be fair, a rather impressive accomplishment. The psychical world is not hiding from you, concealed by your physical senses. If science is going to ever become truly scientific, it is indeed going to need to reconcile itself with psyche, but it must do so by being (for the first time) genuinely, radically empirical, not by becoming radically non-empirical.It is quite clear that academic science is choosing the latter option, and gleefully detaching itself from reality so thoroughly as to make the most delusional new-agers blush.
because observation is harder, so you just have experiment and math, science is allowed to change so it's okay
>>16903236>ai_slop.jpg>the post itself is obvious AI slop>OP is obviously some 19th century materialist tranny with zero STEM degree
>>16903236>AI slop image.>wall of text.
Low-hanging fruit for an undergrad that a wanted to graduate. There's thousands of astronomy majors every year and most won't find a job in their field and you have poor astronomy postgrads who are paid poverty wages to TA while they take out more student loans. They've got to publish something, speculate and weird but the math is not horrible? Postgrads gotta eat. Maybe they'll get hired as a professor? (Fat chance)
