Why are there no more einsteins?In the 21st century we have not had any field revolutionized by a new theory or new invention. There are zero iconic scientists in the past two decades. Ongoing projects in any domain keep getting delayed, or take much longer than anticipated. Also IQ has been declining, and school achievement standards have been decreasing. Even though more papers are being published than ever, scientific innovation seems to be slowing. In the first decades of both the 20th and 19th century science and tech moved faster. Is humanity getting dumber?
>>16928742Well, don't keep us in suspense, anon. What are these low hanging fruits? Enthrall us with your acumen. We can't all be a genius like you.
>>16928114>No physicist in the last 50 years has come even close to accomplishing what Einstein accomplished.you can't possibly claim to know that because you can't even name 20 physicists, fucking idiot
>>16918223The reason physics is stuck in a rut is because it is stuck wrestling with numerous contradictions brought about by its false presuppositions. For example, it takes as an axiom the statement that the earth is in motion (in the guise of the constancy of the speed of light and "relativity", in order to explain the Michelsen-Morley experiement). In reality earth is measurably flat and stationary, thereby giving incontrovertible evidence of intelligent design of our realm. Before you kneejerk, answer this: can you show me any scientifically measured earth curvature? Just one measurement of drop over distance. https://youtu.be/WffliCP2dU0?si=v1t5BATn32nLE7lG
"The last 20 years" is too restrictive, it'd exclude all the living 70+ year old titans of their fields which you'd claim were last century's Einsteins because they started making significant contributions in the 90s or something, even though those are the generation currently getting all the publicity and awards for breakthroughs made this century or earlier.
>>16925613accessibility isn't a factor herepeople just don't give a fuck
what is the cause of homosexuality
>>16927192A significant amount of research on the effects of steroid hormones on development has already been established since the 70s. The results have been consistent since then, so no reason to reference a recent publication unless it has come up with something that has not been consistent with previous observations.
>>16927406there's probably another percentage who didn't admit it in the surveys.and the remaining ones were because they watched Glee.
dude just transcend that shit already.the guy is nice to look at. a woman in that good of shape is also nice to look at. she has a vagina and I have a dick. vaginas are where dicks are supposed to go. its literally no more complicated than that.
>>16927748a lot of guys like fat women. some people are broken.
Gay ass thread
is it wrong to maybe prefer or very slightly like penisnot in a gay way but just a better of two evils way it’s not gay to prefer penis right?it’s not like id want to do anything with it, if i had to id prefer a penis but it’s not like id enjoy it
>>16926199The scientific reason is that you are a cock gargling faggot who is used to getting most of your caloric intake from guzzling herpes infected semen.Trust the science.
bro felt bad about gooning to gay porn so he had to post this on /sci/
>>16926199there you go:>>16925812
why are there threads all over 4chan currently with an image of a fit male chest, and a "why not be gay" theme. Just fuck off already.
Faggot thread
Why the scientific consensus says that women and men have the same iq if imperial data contradicts this statement?
Women are fascinated by cheese.
>>16924100I don't understand
>>16927315Brief explanation: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2023/02/brief-introduction-to-test-bias-in-mental-testing/Jensen's 1980 book (Bias in Mental Testing) is a good one.
>>16845334because at a certain point society becomes a parody of itself and you realize that it's more or less pointless to talk at length about this kind of shit because the only reason someone would consider it worth discussing is because they're trying to get you to believe something other than reality for the purposes of gaining something from you>b-but muh statistics, muh standardization, muh theories of mind, muh MBTIacknowledging that men and women have different intelligence levels would imply by extension that something needs to be done about it, which is a product of the modern political system where a jew, and evangelical, and some old boomer get together and write a piece of legislation that "fixes the problem" by creating a tax about it and requiring you give up your 4th amendment rights or something. somehow every human being is unique and special but groups of human beings must be absolutely interchangeable, featureless, and solely nominal divisions, or the whole fuckin' thing falls apart.At best, the averages are the same, but there are far more men who are stunning geniuses with the ability to solve world hunger, and correspondingly more absolute human garbage that should be executed the second they take their first breath
>>16845334Um
>Expanding context from 32k to 128k tokens can require 16× more attention compute>16× more memory for attention matricesSparing all the politics of why Anthropic lost their government contract, the result is that they lost billions of dollars and can't afford to run so many servers. Everyone one seems to be noticing, but a lot of users seem to be fairly ignorant as to why Claude has suddenly been gumped. This seems like a good opportunity to educate people about the quadratic scaling nature of how LLM works.Large language models built on transformer self-attention require compute and memory that scale quadratically with context length because every token must attend to every other token. Reducing available resources (GPU VRAM, compute throughput, or memory bandwidth) forces the system to reduce sequence length, model size, batch size, or attention precision to stay within hardware limits.
>>16928994For Yakub's sake go to >>>/g/ nigga
>>16929000You don't understand. The paid accounts are gumped. People are paying $100/mo and getting ripped off now. They're panicking.>>16929010/g/ is for gadgets and desktop ricing. Not actual computer science.
>>16928994>quadratic scalingbut isn't this only true in a naive sense? firstly transformers don't have to be n^2 anyway. also once you get models that are 'good enough' then many techniques can be applied recursively to improve the processing in closer to linear scaling, even when the transformer is n^2
>>16929045There is nothing in your post that can't be handled in >>>/g/
Who gives a shit what AI companies do with their products in the age of open-weight models?
Not sure if this is the correct board to post (if it is, forgive me and move to the appropriate board) but I live close to a military base and saw some fairly strange aircraft in formation, probably around five if I were to guess. Pic is the closest I've seen, but instead of the slight kink, the shape was a perfect equilateral triangle except for the bottom, which was zig-zagged and had to be tens of thousands of feet up with me only able to make it out with a scope in the back I had.Any of this look familiar? I mean, is there any reason or advantage why it would be this shape instead of what we usually see with other aircraft like with the F22 for instance?
>>16929004Physics bros deal with this one for me.
>>16929004>>>/k/
>>16929004wing make flymore wing = more fly
What is the chadliest field of mathematics and why is it set theory?
guys this is a set theory thread
>>16928503i mean the thread certainly belongs to the set of all gay shit, so it is indeed tangentially related
>>16918942>no 3x+1 at the bottomkys
>>16918942>random matrices and perfectoid spaces below "genius level"Are you fucking kidding? Random matrices are just applied linear algebra, a way for people to churn out heuristics without actually proving anything. Perfectoid spaces are just one definition, and by the way existed long before Scholze (espaces sympathétiques, Fontaine-Wintenberger). I think you probably meant p-adic geometry, but that's also now a meme area ("thanks" to Scholze).
>>16918942>Iceberg made by some retard after browsing wikipedia outline for 30 minutes.I swear if I see some tranny repost this fucking chart one more time.
>differentiable everywhere and continuous nowhere>either the concept of differentiable is bullshit>or the density of irrationals in rationals (and vice versa) is bullshit>effectively reals are bullshit Pick your poison.
>>16928918>differentiable everywhereUh, no. It's literally an easy exercise in calc 1 to show that differentiability implies continuity.
It is nowhere differentiable. I am going to be charitable and assume you meant to say it's not Riemann integrable.
>>16928918>differentiable everywhere and continuous nowherethis doesn't even need a proof to disprove because you're just violating a definition
>>16928995That differentiable functions are continuous is a theorem, not a premise.Let [math] \left(\mathbf F,+,\times,\tau_{\bf F}\right) [/math] be a topological field, [math] \left(X,+,\cdot,\tau\right) [/math] be a TVS over it, [math]D[/math] be a subset of [math]\bf F[/math], [math]x[/math] be a point in [math]D[/math] and [math] f:D\longrightarrow X[/math] be have a derivative [math] \delta [/math] at [math]x[/math] (in a non-Hausdorff, derivatives aren't unique).Let [math]W[/math] be a neighborhood of [math]\bf 0[/math]. Choose [math] V\in\mathcal N\left(\mathbf 0\right) [/math] such that [math] V+V\subseteq W [/math]. By boundedness of singletons, there exists [math] U_1\in\mathcal N\left(0\right) [/math] such that [math] U_1\delta \subseteq V[/math]. There also exist [math] U_2 \in \mathcal N\left(0\right) [/math] and [math] U_\delta \in \mathcal N\left(\mathbf 0\right) [/math] such that [math] U_2U_\delta \subseteq V[/math].By differentiability, there exists [math] U_2\in\mathcal N\left(0\right) [/math] such that[eqn] \forall y\in D \cap \left(x + U_2\right), \frac{f\left(y\right) - f\left(x\right)}{y - x}\in \delta + U_\delta.[/eqn]Put [math] U_x=U_1\cap U_2 [/math]. Then for all [math] y \in D \cap \left(x + U_x\right) \setminus\left\{x\right\} [/math],[eqn] f\left(y\right) - f\left(x\right) = \left(y - x\right) \frac{f\left(y\right) - f\left(x\right)}{y - x} \in U_x \left(\delta + U_\delta\right) \subseteq U_x\delta + U_xU_\delta \subseteq U_1\delta + U_2U_\delta \subseteq V+V \subseteq W. [/eqn]And [math] f\left(x\right) \in f\left(x\right) + W[/math]. It follows that [math] \exists U\in\mathcal N\left(x\right), f\left(U\right) \subseteq f\left(x\right) + W [/math]. Since this holds for all such [math]W[/math], we conclude that [math]f[/math] is continuous at [math]x[/math].
>we engineer what has been called a bodyoid: brainless animal bodies that provide as much meat as we desire without harming any sentient beings>this would transform medicine - the same platform would allow us to grow organs on demand, eliminate transplant waiting lists, and produce perfectly matched tissues for each patient>experimental therapies could be tested on full biological systems without involving conscious animals, regenerative medicine would accelerate as entire replacement tissues become manufacturable>in the same way that agriculture turned food from a scarce resource into an abundant one, engineered bodyoids would turn biological material into infrastructure - meat without slaughter, organs without donors, and medical research without sentient sufferingWhy are doctors and scientists such pussies? I bet you could pluck a German or american doctor from the 50s and give him 2026 technology and he would be able to grow bodyoids and become rich.
>>16928814all a waste of time. we skip that crap and go fully synthetic which is superior by orders of magnitude.
>>16928814Good luck convincing consumers to pay more for it.
>>16928814At least write your own posts like a human.
How close are we to reaching Longevity Escape Velocity?
>>16928769Zamn look at that 18 maybe even 17 year old boy
>>16928769human longevity won't be priority, nor be focus, until control of humanity is reached
>>16928838>since the trend is that the velocity is slowing down, neverthis is such bullshit
>>16928769why he trims his eyebrows but not his nose hair?
>>16928769He reached it already. It came not through science but through the sublime genetic alchemy of the Brazilian population.
why didn't they do something like this at the chernobyl?
>>16928702They did exactly that. Huge portions of the ruins were flooded with concrete. Just poured it right in there. Personally I think they should have kept going and just created a concrete mountain over it.
>>16928702when I saw the thumbnail all small I thought you had drawn Schrodinger's cat, and I was like "damn boy, you want to make the whole city of Pripiev both dead and alive at the same time?
They didn't have robots back then. The turbo sucker guy would've gotten it as bad as the other cleaners around the site.
>>16928910They also dumped tons of crap from helicopters over the site.
>>16928982They did have robots back then. The electronics were fried because of the radiation.>"The most eye-opening thing is the cold fact that much of the Soviet enterprise was undertaken with human force, where it was clearly within the capability of robotics," says William ("Red") Whittaker, a Carnegie Mellon robotics researcher who heads the university's Field Robotics Center and advised the Soviets through some of the Chernobyl cleanup. "It's not like they needed magic or technology that was beyond the reach of what we were doing. It was really a matter of bringing that technology to bear." Although the Soviets did use some West German and Japanese robots with limited success, no U.S. machines took part in the cleanup.>The Soviets used about 60 remote-controlled robots, most of them manufactured domestically within the U.S.S.R. Although several designs were eventually able to contribute to the cleanup, most of the robots quickly succumbed to the effects of high levels of radiation on delicate electronics. Even those machines that could operate in high-radiation environments often failed after being doused with water in an effort to decontaminate them.>But while the Soviets were discarding automation in favor of manpower, scientists at Carnegie Mellon had already perfected working prototypes of several robots that would likely have solved many of the problems at Chernobyl. Unfortunately, the machines were not available. The working prototypes were committed to the cleanup of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant - itself shut down seven years earlier after a partial meltdown - and U.S. scientists were discouraged from designing special machines for the Soviets by regulations meant to prevent sensitive technology from being passed along to countries considered a threat to the U.S.
Correct soldering procedure edition. Now with 30% more schizophrenia!Previous Thread: >>16916381This 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!>If you have a question, before posting, read some of the older posts and ,if you can, try to answer their questions on your post. That way the thread isn't an endless log of unanswered questions.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.
>>16929007This thread is officially protected by Yakub's blessing. Go out and shit on the desks of the humanities departments.
Professor Dave dunking all over Eric Weinstein again.Is he the hero we need? Someone has to be the pathogen to the scientific community.
dunking on weinstein is like stealing candy from a baby
>>16928811Why is it that only pseuds with no academic merit have a hateboner for Weinstein? Meanwhile, some of the most prominent mathematicians like Frenkel and Penrose have respect for the guy?
>>16928811"Professor" Dave is an absolute charlatan and shill designed by alphabet agencies to corral and ultimately cull the midwit "useless eater" masses. Please do yourself a favor and actually cultivate your own powers of reasoning, not getting your "truth" from jewtube shills.
>>16928811>mr reddit
>>16928822>anti-science rhetoric among the far right religious typesThats Dave. He has a bachelors degree in Chemistry and argued with a professor of it. Im not even well read on Chemistry and I could tell Dave isnt a "peer" because I could tell the implications.
Would it be possible to truly digitize physical objects?I'm not talking about scanning a piece of paper, but of being able to reproduce a 1:1 copy of the object given sufficient tools (which I'm aware can't actually exist, as measuring uncertainty and manufacturing error are a thing).Sure, we would need to perform an analog to digital conversion, which is never gonna be perfect, just arbitrarily precise given enough memory.However at the end of the day physical objects are made up of atoms. If we can record these atoms and their relative positions that's digital information, isn't it?I guess we would need to record the momentum of the atoms as well, but that's just thermodynamics.Once we have the momentum, couldn't we just agree upon say 15 degrees Celsius as a reference point, perform a conversion from the measured temperature to our reference temperature.(Yes, our physical theories aren't perfect, I know, but we can get like 99.99% close)Do we ever need to have a look at the sub-atomic level, where we can't measure momentum and position at the same time?
>>16926728Read the article, they didn't 3D print graphene they printed PLASTIC that has the same geometry the graphene has.>impermeableAnon, it has a fucking gyroid geometry, it's full of holes. No matter how impermeable the graphene is, if it's arranged in a structure full of holes it's gonna leak>SSTO based on strength weightNow show me some graphene that's larger than 3.5 cm^2 that has the necessary tensile strength to make a SSTO>>16926729>bulk graphene productionAnon, before there was graphene, carbon nanotubes were all the rage. There was talk for years of eventually making ultrastrong nanotubes in bulk, but nanotubes are still insanely expensive. The best method we have for making carbon nanotubes and graphene is CVD. CVD is crap. It's slow and a random process. With a random process, it's incredibly unlikely to make a perfect or close to perfect structure without defects. And if you want ultrastrong graphene you really need no defects. Just how slow can CVD be? Well we also use CVD to make diamond. It takes 2-4 weeks to make a 1 carat stone via CVD.>not sure if possibleSome of the processes necessary were recently demonstratedhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.24431>no need for moneyNah, money's staying around. It would help fund further nanotech development. Also, by pure happenstance, one of the inventors of cryptography(Ralph Merkle) sort of invented mechanosynthesis. So there's a lot of overlap between nanotech and cryptocurrency. The first replicators will be cryptographically locked down and almost impossible to hack. Just reverse engineering them will require an X-ray laser. As the saying goes, "there's always room at the bottom," so you can fit in a lot of anti-tamper hardware.
>>16926913Can APM be scaled up? Speed of print seems to be the issue.https://www.grapheneuses.org/graphene-companies/Theres many companies producing graphene in bulk. I suspect it is only a matter of time before someone figures out bulk graphene sheet production. That solves most scarcity problems as theres a graphene perovskite solar panel->methane->graphene closed loop that creates a carbon negative circular economy. If graphene sheets can be produced in bulk it solves scarcity and carbon capture, you could suck carbon from the ocean with floating solar panels and produce graphene. The key research is bulk panels.
>>16926729??? Wrong. I want the replicator for drones to destroy my enemies replicators before they destroy mine. What say you slave?
>>16927207>Can APM be scaled upProbably. It could be enormously productive. As in, productive enough to make all infrastructure in the USA in a couple weeks.>There's many companies producing graphene in bulkMost of those companies are probably scams. Most make graphene powder, which is often just graphitehttps://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.201803784Graphene powder isn't all that useful. It can't be used to make solar panels and is marginally better than graphite.>if graphene sheets can be produced in bulkThe only way we have to make sheets is CVD and CVD doesn't really scale. Notice how Graphenea, the only company making graphene films on that website, doesn't have any production numbers? That's because they ain't making much. Graphene's a fucking meme material. All this talk of graphene being super strong is a fucking meme. Anything more than 10 layers of atoms is graphite and graphite's brittle. So you can't really take advantage of graphene being super strong at the macroscale.
>>16924196I think life solved that problem, for all practical pupourses right? All that would be needed is a self replicating digital dna to physical dna converter, and then you have a vast subset of physical reality that's directly convertible between information and reality. Sure adapting a house like or a car to this format would make them look somewhat alien and engineering challenges remain but a direct flow between digital and physical would be established.
Why do we not research natural mosquito repellants? Is there really no reliable plant for repelling mosquitos?
Jam is the best repellent, and it is derived from natural ingredients
>>16928324Asserted, and disregarded, without evidence.>>16928303A lot of plants naturally discourage mosquitos. Some researchers think the reason cats love catnip and silver vine because of their natural mosquito deterrent abilities. DEET still works better.
>>16928303citronella?
What happened to those anti-mosquito laser systems someone was developing years ago? Regulatory or safety issues? Couldn't distinguish mosquitos from other insects? Just bullshit from the start? I would've bought dozens of them and put them in random places for the satisfaction of torching the wings off of parasites.
>>16928303What would a plant possibly repel mosquitoes for?
