>>16930381
>He never has an intention to dive it's a scam .
???
He performed several deep dives with it and literally died during one.

>>16930386
>He performed several deep dives with it and literally died during one.
and the Easter Bunny runs over the meadow and hides colorful eggs because Christ was nailed to the cross. But it’s good to see that you haven’t the faintest idea what I’m talking about, and have to regurate the vomit they shoved down your throat

>>16930455
So you're saying he never actually dived?

>>16927190
It was a child.

>>16927190
>>16930623
He was 19, a grown-ass adult. Part of the reason he felt compelled to go is that his mother was supposed to go in his place.

no

>>16930624
God.

>>16930628

which mass extintion we know of cou'lve been caused by that?

late ordovician?

>>16930624
Is there anything aside from possibilities preventing water from oxidizing rust into pure iron?

because derek stepped back

>>16927050
Axler is easier read and a better intro to proofs compared to Spivak

>>16927013
>This is crap
>Proceeds to suggest a worse version of the same thing

>>16927755
kek

>Measure theory, topology, differential geometry, category theory
This is the perfect roadmap for someone who wants to study abstract bullshit and secure a lucrative career as a community college professor.

>>16921892

What a waste of fucking time.

If you genuinely work with numbers youll be learning matlab and numerical methods

Learning RK4 to solve odes in 10 minutes is more convenient than reading a 400+ page book

null is not the opposite of infinity
eat shit retard

>>16930239
>mf presupposes the end of all things
>mf still assumes there'll a structure left for all the things to not-exist in

>>16930239
>if i repeatedly add 1 to something it somehow becomes infinite
no it does not chud

>>16930470
what if i do it a non-finite amount of times?

>>16930239
>If everything ends forever, that is still infinity.
see that's where you0r argument fails, for ending is within the everything, so even ending ends at some point

>>16930199
>in the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, the vacuum is not truly empty, but a dynamic, lowest-energy state filled with fluctuating quantum fields and "virtual" particles.

The "virtual" particles assist with viewing far off places. The types of quantum fields in a space vacuum are "anti-matter" as predicted by the SM; the opposite of quantum fields that exist merely through the act of observing them, the "bandwidth" that is available to view other places in the galaxy is related instead to how many times they have been observed, proven by the illusion of universal acceleration being mistaken for differences in distance instead of the resistance of the antimatter theorized to be present there with the light signature data consumed during observation.
>If this is true then all celestial objects of regular observation throughout the span of human history would have gradually heightened opacity and eventually have vanished.
>This effect could explain explain all aspects of the cosmos based on perception and the amount of antimatter in between any celestial objects.

Consider that even the phases of the moon would adhere to this concept, with a full moon being caused by the lack of use of the antimatter bandwidth by the majority of the human population and a crescent moon being caused by an abundance of virtual particles in the line of sight of the majority of the world population since it exists predominately on one side of the world's elliptical orbit.

>I theorize that in order to see or perceive any object anti-matter must be present in order for it to be perceived.

>Consider that anything that receives sufficient and constant attention from the majority of humankind disappears. The examples of this on Earth are endless; Jesus, Elvis, COVID, toilet paper, the USSR, the Apollo space program, etcetera...

>>16930199
Hi Dede, basically all of this postulating came from wondering what an undiscovered opposite of the "observer effect" in physics on may be, or what effects not observing something has on it's measurements in our normal space-time dimension even if such an effect would remain "undiscoverable" due to it's nature.

>>16930430
Ooh, I see. Then during an eclipse, the lack of antimatter bandwidth of the Moon (which really is an imbalance of matter bandwidth) would collide with the antimatter bandwidth of the Sun that is hidden (and therefore cannot be observed), resulting in a massive outburst of light (that we mistake for the coronal glow).

>>16930481
Yes.

It could explain alot of other things, like the reason the solar corona is so hot and bright is because it is difficult to look at, resulting in an abundance of antimatter in those 94 million miles; and the reason the moon becomes transparent is because life on Earth's attention has depleted the antimatter in those 238,900 miles causing the virtual particles to obscure the energy that was visible through the antimatter in space.

If he has a history of doing it then it's a valid question why the fuck does he keep coming to a place where he knows he'll shout nigger unprompted and annoy everyone there.
If it happened just once then everyone else should just shut the fuck up and ignore it. If the word wasn't so taboo nobody would care. They unknowingly keep giving it more power for no reason.

>>16920744
i think niggers should stay at home. i think niggers should live on the sun.

>>16929933
Yes, which would inevitably lead to the question whether or not the more recent shift from first administering vaccines at the age of 6 (like the '60s) to the age of 1 (around the '80s) and then to 3 months (nowadays) has lead to a shift in the way developmental disabilities present in kids on average.
As it seems, fewer reports of autism with sudden regression and loss of previously acquired skills at the age of 2 or 3 are now reported, though the proportion of mental retardation in kids diagnosed with autism by the age of 6 have remained stable since the '90s at around 50-60 %. Obviously the numbers are massively skewed downwards in most statistics because a lot of autism is "falsely" diagnosed in people much older.
This would technically fit with the notion that the shift to giving vaccines earlier has diminished the number of kids suffering from anaphylactic and autoimmunological reactions to vaccines against which they developed an allergic reaction due to previous exposure.
Though that kind of getting used to vaccines should decrease autism prevalence, yet we continue to observe an increase so I'm sceptical that vaccines are the sole contribution. I suspect a significant factor that drives up autism rates are interest groups, I'm mostly looking at hedge funds and banks but also big pharma, which has captured insurance companies and insurance regulation and now deliberately diagnoses too many kids with autism to enrich investors and stimulate economic growth to prevent a recession. This would also fit well with the sudden avalanche of neurodiversity campaigns and advertisements which is disease-mongering masquerading as civil rights.

>>16930129
Given the recent shift, however, that most autism cases nowadays present as less socially incapacitated relative to measured IQ, I also contend that much of today's "autism" is more akin to intellectual disability caused by long-term exposure to various products like pesticides. Then, there's the whole thing going on with the side effects brought on by the consumption of anti-psychotics and similarly which ha become normal for pregnant parents and are routinely given to children by the time they're 4. Some studies suggest that consuming anti-psychotics during pregnancy may increase autism rates by up to 800 %, for anti-depressants it's 300 %. If you go by the stats, 20 % of all women are on anti-depressants so that alone could double autism rates.

>>16930130
In the end, a proper answer would involve splitting up autism into dozens of separate diagnostic labels. Something like
-Autism caused by an encephalitis/allergic reactions
-Autism caused by long-term exposure to psychotropic substances
-Autism caused by maternal autoimmune disorders
-De novo mutations and genetic defects causing autism
-Autism as a result of birth complications.
-Metabolical diseases that cause autism. They're comparatively rare.
-Autism as a side effect of medication in young kid.
Essentially, we would realize that autism is medically meaningless because it's merely a symptom present in a lot of diseases. Autism is also characteristic for schizophrenics. Yet, the medical establishment aggressively promotes the spectrum narrative which is meaningless and misleading and also declares certain issues to be "not autism" despite them fulfilling autism criteria based on mere political decisions.

because penis and iq correlate negative at -.38 so higher iq people dont want to hookup they're insecure lmao

>>16928583
>because penis and iq correlate negative at -.38
did you plot blacks and east asians on the same graph?

>>16925032
>anti-iq tranny pivots immediately to crying about muh pol
kek

>>16928583
Source?

I have any IQ of 370 and can telepathically force women to suck my dick.

They definitely can be. Also the most effective treatment for curing addiction, particularly alcoholism. Interestingly, they don't really work for people on antidepressants.

>>16926560
First time in /sci/ and happen to find this thread. As a patient taking SSRIs can confirm that these mofos blunt your emotions. But i also take them in tandem with other meds, so take it with a grain of salt

File: SSRI-somatodendritic-area.png (204 KB, 1003x613)

204 KB PNG

>>16926536
>(SSRIs do this)
That's not what they do. They force serotonin to stay in synapses longer, which is initially highly stimulatory, but subsequently does 2 main things after a few weeks:

1) Downregulates/desensitizes 5-HT receptors in general
2) Upregulates enzymes for neurotransmitter breakdown in general

When you pay attention to how this "helps" anyone, it's almost exclusively seen as good in those individuals suffering from emotional outbursts. SSRIs stop them from needing to cry or scream or otherwise cause undue emotional damage in their everyday interactions.

As far as 5-HT1 goes, that is simply focused on more because it is a better long-term target. It takes weeks or months to cause serotonin neuron desensitization. 5-HT2 has a much more rapid period of adjustment, so desensitization happens quickly and rebounds quickly. However, SSRIs have effects on both.

Serotonergics work well in low doses

>>16926536
most 5ht receptors are located in the gi tract and also the mouse tail suspension test is dubious at best. ssri efficacy is modest and causes wiener disease

>>16930050
What I mean is that things that would have taken 50 years to discover or invent can now be discovered or invented in just 5 years. Today, we don’t draw complex mathematical equations on paper and calculate them ourselves—we use calculators. By shifting the burden from the human brain to the machine, we relieve the human brain of that load and save time as well. We’ll soon start reaping the benefits of the investments we’re making in machine learning and computing. In other words, during this era where most things are happening rapidly and are expected to continue doing so, the human brain is lagging behind when it comes to making new discoveries and inventions. That’s what I meant by “sufficient”—we’re not stupid; we just need to accelerate our progress.

File: stoney.jpg (264 KB, 1600x875)

264 KB JPG

I never let on....
That I was on a sinking ship....
I never held back anything for the return swim....
We are on the clock boys and girls
Force it past all this slop, carve through it, burn a fiery path, leave a smoldering wake, big stepper, upon the shoulders of giants we fight to make this cosmic climb
What do you seek upon the way?
Why do you climb?
For who?
Why should the universe reveal herself to you?
With what will you do with it?

One thing I really encourage anyone interested in philosophy to always keep in mind is that, nobody is going to take anything you say you believe in seriously if you only have logical reasons for believing in it, and no personal involvement in it.

What I mean is like, someone can be opposed to war in general, and have a well formed ethical argument for why war is unethical. But someone who has served a tour of duty and seen their friends get blown away has a direct, visceral reason to hate war and knows war is wrong through wisdom, not just knowledge.

Base your philosophy on wisdom, not just some trivial axiomatic reasoning. Philosophy is "love of wisdom" afterall, is it not? Not "love of knowledge". That's what science is for. They form two sides of a coin, in my opinion.

>>16929999
Eliete bloodlines pushed their prodigy spawns too far too early, and they all peaked early, or wound up with too much psychological scrutiny and intervention.

Out of a very small demographic,

A percentage dulls themselves with hard drugs.

A percentage gets burnt out from ridiculous, bad training.

A percentage gets random brain damage.

The remainder is recruited by Universities and Corporations.

Only a teeny-tiny percentage slips through the cracks and is free to have their own identity.

>>16929999
The sum of human knowledge used to be limited enough that it was possible for a person to be a true polymath and be an expert in every field of human knowledge that exists in your civilization.
That is literally physically impossible today. Knowledge has expanded to the point that individual hyper specific sub-sub-sub fields have more data required to fully understand them than it would have taken for someone in the renaissance to be a master of all fields of science.
And it keeps getting worse every day.

>>16930532
>deleterious mutations can just as easily exist imperceptibly throughout the course of generations instead.
Yes. This is literally the reason inbreeding is a problem. Most people are carrying recessive alleles for some deleterious trait or another. Inbreeding raises the chances of offspring expressing these traits from ~ 1 in a million to ~ 1 in 16 (very rough calculation but the order of magnitude is what matters here).

>>16928452
No

>>16930532
>>16930536
Sorry for hanmering down this point, but it is a genuinely teachable moment.
You made a testable, falsifiable, prediction. That being:
>if sexual reproduction were the primary filter for deleterious mutations, then they'd still persist through generations if they were imperceptible.
From this, we can extract a hypothesis:
>if there are imperceptible deleterious mutations floating around, we should expect to see them become more perceptible through consanguinous pairings.
We can investigate this hypothesis by running the following experiment:
>observe frequency of congenital disorders among consanguinous and non-consanguinous offspring respectively.
Upon doing so we find:
>consanguinous pairings result in significantly more disorders than seen in the control group.

In this very short discussion, we have used the scientific method to validate sexual reproduction as the primary filter for deleterious mutations in a way which satisfies Popper's falsifiability principle.
I obviously don't expect you to concede your entire world view because of this. But I would hope you remember it next time you come across arguments regarding the testability and falsifiability of standard evolutionary model.

>>16928633
>Irreducible complexity
This is code for "lack of imagination"

>>16930459
>Linking it to a word doesn't change the claim.
I was hoping you'd read up on it and realize that people have been explaining this supposedly unexplainable process. Well, not you exactly since I'm not even sure you're capable of conscious thought, but maybe some lurker who felt mystified.

>The configuration space
You mean the morphospace.
>requires arbitrary self-constraint
Nothing arbitrary about the morphogenetic field.
>which invalidates DNA premises generally.
It's so "invalidated" people figured this shit out before DNA was actually discovered.

>Whichever trigger you point to, whatever line you draw, i cannot map to DNA.
I know you can't.

>>16930458
((((Science)))) Is wrecking the world

>>16930458
>Cletus upset other languages than English exist
Do you have any idea how fucking stupid half your troglodyte knockoff of German sounds to foreigners?

>>16930485
Sometimes I wonder what it's like to grow up with a language like Japanese, since the country was advanced enough, literate enough and exotic enough a century ago that they created their own "native" terms for scientific/academic concepts instead of using latin/greek.
Mind you, they're mostly just borrowing foreign terms directly these days, but it has to help a lot to learn science with a vocabulary you can understand at a glance.
Of course Western students a century or two ago were also expected to be familiar with greek or latin.

>>16930522
As far as I can tell most languages had scientific terms that are native: German and French in particular are well known to, as some of their jargon was anglicized later.
English, and by that I mean BE, has a history of having been purposefully complicated by design to enforce a class divide on a language level. The mob was supposed to struggle to keep up with conversations of the higher class, and this practice could still be seen in more subtle ways in print media until at least the 20th century.

>>16930545
German sort of yes, French not really, in fact French was exporting barely francisized greco-latin academic jargon to laggards throughout the world. Native french words are rarely used outside of military theory and philosophy.

But even for german... Like compare these two pages, I don't think you need to speak either language to understand that one is far more independent from greco-roman etymology than the other:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiose
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/減数分裂

>>16927660
You should watch Life After People, it's a nice little tv show that explains all the things that could happen if humanity suddenly went extinct. The most catastrophic thing is that all nuclear reactors will meltdown after a couple of weeks and will irradiate the fuck out of earth.
Cities, specifically supermarkets would be completely taken over by insects and other vermin, it would be eldritch just how disgusting it would be.

>>16930535
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvIvTPrsruY

It would be very bad for livestock.

Without humans to preserve it all life will go extinct in 500 million years from solar expansion. We are literally Earth’s only hope lmao

>>16930535
>The most catastrophic thing is that all nuclear reactors will meltdown after a couple of weeks and will irradiate the fuck out of earth
That’s a meme. Pretty much no reactor on earth today will meltdown as severely as say Chernobyl thanks to better containment and safety systems, and even Chernobyl is far from the ecological disaster people think it. Animals live around it just fine.
Much bigger consequence will be the runoff from all the breaking down containment and infrastructure for all the thousands of chemical products we use.

File: 1749178494473597.png (233 KB, 563x542)

233 KB PNG

>>16927279
Finally a real thinker

Imagine a small village of 50 people with little contact with the outside world. One generation, randomly, a considerable excess of males is born, say 13/20 younglings are male. Now, if a few of them are gay, they can fuck eachother instead of fighting over the females, while still contributing to the community economically. You can imagine a "mechanism" where if a young fellow grows up with many older brothers and not many girls around he becomes attracted to men. Such a gene (or group) is favourable in the long term given the external environment/community. Furthermore, in the circumstance that most of the village's men die, a homo can still provide seed to women readily enough, even if he prefers men.

This is just a simple hypothetical scenario, but it proves the conceivability of gayness emerging through evolution. In reality there were far more complicated scenarios and evolution happened over millions of years. The details are impossible to determine as most of the evidence/information is lost, and it would be obscenely complicated even if we could look back and watch it all unfold.

>>16930178
Yeah, nah. you are a homo lol

>>16930229
Butthurt? The trvth can have that effect...

>>16930257
Rofl seethe butt sucker

File: Translation_-_Initiation_(...).png (216 KB, 1280x960)

216 KB PNG

>>16928212
The way we use it, the RNA sequence transliterated from a DNA goes to a ribosome, which transforms it into specific proteins based on the sequence. That RNA sequence usually contains a leader sequence ("grab me here"), plus several start codons ("start translating into a protein from here") and stop codons ("stop translating into protein here") throughout the sequence. Change the sequence a bit and you get different proteins. Change the ribosome a bit and you also get a different protein, think of the ribosome as a... mold or something.
The shape of the ribosome itself is encoded not in "our" genetic material (the DNA in our nucleus) but in the ribosome's own RNA, and it has specific and complexly shaped t(ranslation)RNA that decides how it translates the m(essenger)RNA you give it, but they usually have one central site with a tunnel of sorts for mRNA to pass through it.
It's already very complex and it all varies quite a bit between bacteria and eukaryotes for example (in the ribosome subunits or the tRNA), but it could potentially vary even more. For example an organism could have floating enzymes without bothering with the whole ribosomal structure (many viruses use this to simply replicate their own RNA), or it could have giant ribosome equivalents with several different transcription sites that are more likely to accept one type of sequence over another, or a whole factory process going on inside, or it could have something we haven't even imagined. There's a LOT of room for variation in any case.

>>16929378
>The shape of the ribosome itself is encoded not in "our" genetic material (the DNA in our nucleus) but in the ribosome's own RNA
I'm misremembering by the way, there is rDNA in our genome that is used to partially form the ribosomal RNA.

>>16929381
Oh, and mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own matrix to produce "their" ribosomes, and prokaryotes mainly just send the rRNA to be transcribed by existing ribosomes, that's probably what I was misremembering.

I have no doubts in my mind about the existence of life on other planets. There is likely both intelligent life that is concealing itself and microbial life on other planets.

File: caenorhabditis-elegans-he(...).jpg (61 KB, 900x677)

61 KB JPG

>>16924770
It's possible that our DNA is like the nervous system of C. elegans in comparison to whatever system acts similar to DNA for other forms of life in the universe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLZW8Deq8vE