Karmine wrote:

I like this channel:


My small brain can understand it.

now if only i was skilled enough to really pursue a more stem-heavy major

science is fun

z0z wrote:

Karmine wrote:

I like this channel:

My small brain can understand it.

now if only i was skilled enough to really pursue a more stem-heavy major

science is fun

Same, went into computer science because it was easier than physics lol.
It was indeed easy af.

A very nice video the shows how you can create quantum particles out of a long chain of pendulums. While the resultant particles have slightly different behavior than the real deal (the chain of pendulums allows 1D space instead of 3D space), it comes very close to showing what is really going on and how. Spoiler: it's all waves. Always has been always will be. Wavy waveee reality~~~~~~



This makes me want to simulate wave mechanics so >_<

Karmine wrote:

z0z wrote:

Karmine wrote:

I like this channel:

My small brain can understand it.

now if only i was skilled enough to really pursue a more stem-heavy major

science is fun

Same, went into computer science because it was easier than physics lol.
It was indeed easy af.

actually making it difficult to determine a good major to go in

z0z wrote:

actually making it difficult to determine a good major to go in

Computer engineering can pay a lot if you are good at it (FPGA & embedded stuffs). That's software for automobile, routers, medical machines, defense, etc. I don't believe it's as competitive as web dev cs crowd, but many who major in computer engineering do tend to switch to cs pretty fast because they don't like it (like Roshan).

abraker wrote:

z0z wrote:

actually making it difficult to determine a good major to go in

Computer engineering can pay a lot if you are good at it (FPGA & embedded stuffs). That's software for automobile, routers, medical machines, defense, etc. I don't believe it's as competitive as web dev cs crowd, but many who major in computer engineering do tend to switch to cs pretty fast because they don't like it (like Roshan).

problems, i'm a rising junior so i would have to somehow arrange my classes in a way that i can remain graduating on time and also i'm not sure i'll be good at engineering

i was only good enough to pass some science classes

z0z wrote:

abraker wrote:

z0z wrote:

actually making it difficult to determine a good major to go in

Computer engineering can pay a lot if you are good at it (FPGA & embedded stuffs). That's software for automobile, routers, medical machines, defense, etc. I don't believe it's as competitive as web dev cs crowd, but many who major in computer engineering do tend to switch to cs pretty fast because they don't like it (like Roshan).

problems, i'm a rising junior so i would have to somehow arrange my classes in a way that i can remain graduating on time and also i'm not sure i'll be good at engineering

i was only good enough to pass some science classes

with that line of thinking you are not going to get far
instead thinking "I don't think I'll be good at" or "im only good enough for x" think about what spikes your interest and look more into it.

I looked into coding looooong before I went to college. My 2nd year in highschool I looked up tutorials online and started out making games in command prompt. I thought that was so cool I continued and that allowed me to build the skilset. I was also fascinated about tech even then and joined my highscool's robotics club.

abraker wrote:

z0z wrote:

abraker wrote:

z0z wrote:

actually making it difficult to determine a good major to go in

Computer engineering can pay a lot if you are good at it (FPGA & embedded stuffs). That's software for automobile, routers, medical machines, defense, etc. I don't believe it's as competitive as web dev cs crowd, but many who major in computer engineering do tend to switch to cs pretty fast because they don't like it (like Roshan).

problems, i'm a rising junior so i would have to somehow arrange my classes in a way that i can remain graduating on time and also i'm not sure i'll be good at engineering

i was only good enough to pass some science classes

with that line of thinking you are not going to get far
instead thinking "I don't think I'll be good at" or "im only good enough for x" think about what spikes your interest and look more into it.

I looked into coding looooong before I went to college. My 2nd year in highschool I looked up tutorials online and started out making games in command prompt. I thought that was so cool I continued and that allowed me to build the skilset. I was also fascinated about tech even then and joined my highscool's robotics club.

uh-huh anyway i curse you with low volition <3 anything you're interested in is too tiring for you to pursue now

...

mm, i would hope to agree though, ideally i would want to imagine that interest would be a reliable determining factor of what would be best to healthily pursue and maybe be challenged with

ultimately though there are a far greater range of fears around being ill-equipped for what exactly would be taught, and it's difficult from an unfamiliarized perspective to really intuit what you would realistically hope to see from majoring in something when you're learning a particular frame of perspective and scope of application about that subject that may entirely contradict/shatter/distort/defeat your interest in it (or alternatively you could even be disillusioned with the broader consequences of your role in a labor market for company practices you don't want to participate in or something-- imprecise but its close to what i mean, moral objections that nullify the time and effort and Money invested, basically)

like i could apply for some academic track that i think would cover what i love but i would fear something like bieng easily mistaken about the implications and consequences and logistics of that study in practice. it sort of starts to feel like you need absolute full context before pursuing something that already Costs you so much to the extent that the institution itself is plausibly known/recognized more for being a source of years or decades of debt rather than what information it supplied you with

im not quite sure how to articulate this, but, something like that, maybe

Achromalia wrote:

abraker wrote:

z0z wrote:

abraker wrote:

z0z wrote:

actually making it difficult to determine a good major to go in

Computer engineering can pay a lot if you are good at it (FPGA & embedded stuffs). That's software for automobile, routers, medical machines, defense, etc. I don't believe it's as competitive as web dev cs crowd, but many who major in computer engineering do tend to switch to cs pretty fast because they don't like it (like Roshan).

problems, i'm a rising junior so i would have to somehow arrange my classes in a way that i can remain graduating on time and also i'm not sure i'll be good at engineering

i was only good enough to pass some science classes

with that line of thinking you are not going to get far
instead thinking "I don't think I'll be good at" or "im only good enough for x" think about what spikes your interest and look more into it.

I looked into coding looooong before I went to college. My 2nd year in highschool I looked up tutorials online and started out making games in command prompt. I thought that was so cool I continued and that allowed me to build the skilset. I was also fascinated about tech even then and joined my highscool's robotics club.

uh-huh anyway i curse you with low volition <3 anything you're interested in is too tiring for you to pursue now

...

mm, i would hope to agree though, ideally i would want to imagine that interest would be a reliable determining factor of what would be best to healthily pursue and maybe be challenged with

ultimately though there are a far greater range of fears around being ill-equipped for what exactly would be taught, and it's difficult from an unfamiliarized perspective to really intuit what you would realistically hope to see from majoring in something when you're learning a particular frame of perspective and scope of application about that subject

like i could apply for some academic track that i think would cover what i love but i would fear something like bieng easily mistaken about the implications and consequences and logistics of that study in practice. it sort of starts to feel like you need absolute ful context before pursuing something that already costs you so much to the extent that the institution itself is known/recognized more for being a source of years or decades of debt rather than what information it supplied you with

im not quite sure how to articulate this, but, something like that, maybe

ngl my ass just can't really get to doing much self-study

it's very possible that my attitude did push me into a wall for college and i do think cost is a pretty big reason

Achromalia wrote:

like i could apply for some academic track that i think would cover what i love but i would fear something like bieng easily mistaken about the implications and consequences and logistics of that study in practice. it sort of starts to feel like you need absolute ful context before pursuing something that already costs you so much to the extent that the institution itself is known/recognized more for being a source of years or decades of debt rather than what information it supplied you with

Funny you say that because my first semester in college I did not have a major and was undecided. What? Abraker, but given all you told us surely you would go computer science major, right? Well that's what I thought I wanted to do, that's what I liked, but it's also what I have known best. And that was an issue to me because I would spend first 2 years being taught what I already learned myself. The other option was computer engineering technology, and that too deals with stuff I like but also stuff I knew much less about at the time. Working with actual circuit board hardware coding instead of just computers unlocked a new path for me.

So if it comes to choosing major related to something you already know, try going for a close alternative that will help supplement what you already do know.

z0z wrote:

ngl my ass just can't really get to doing much self-study

it's very possible that my attitude did push me into a wall for college and i do think cost is a pretty big reason

mmyeah, i wonder if sometimes you're just immediately and fundamentally disadvantaged from just not being fortunate enough to be well-conditioned or predisposed to a certain perspective with a certain range of conditions for persistence...

i'd probably struggle, maybe, because of a generalized failure to persist and remain attentive in my interests + a highly fearful profile of avoiding anything that seems even remotely close to being regrettable, while failing to avoid the regrettable position of inaction itself

Achromalia wrote:

z0z wrote:

ngl my ass just can't really get to doing much self-study

it's very possible that my attitude did push me into a wall for college and i do think cost is a pretty big reason

mmyeah, i wonder if sometimes you're just immediately and fundamentally disadvantaged from just not being fortunate enough to be well-conditioned or predisposed to a certain perspective with a certain range of conditions for persistence...

i'd probably struggle, maybe, because of a generalized failure to persist and remain attentive in my interests + a highly fearful profile of avoiding anything that seems even remotely close to being regrettable, while failing to avoid the regrettable position of inaction itself

if a person decided to roll the dice on a new life that may improve their situation, since most life on earth is bacteria, they'll probably just be a bacteria or some unknown alien organism

but yeah i am fundamentally disadvantaged compared to the average american

abraker wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

like i could apply for some academic track that i think would cover what i love but i would fear something like bieng easily mistaken about the implications and consequences and logistics of that study in practice. it sort of starts to feel like you need absolute ful context before pursuing something that already costs you so much to the extent that the institution itself is known/recognized more for being a source of years or decades of debt rather than what information it supplied you with

Funny you say that because my first semester in college I did not have a major and was undecided. What? Abraker, but given all you told us surely you would go computer science major, right? Well that's what I thought I wanted to do, that's what I liked, but it's also what I have known best. And that was an issue to me because I would spend first 2 years being taught what I already learned myself. The other option was computer engineering technology, and that too deals with stuff I like but also stuff I knew much less about at the time. Working with actual circuit board hardware coding instead of just computers unlocked a new path for me.

So if it comes to choosing major related to something you already know, try going for a close alternative that will help supplement what you already do know.

not that you can't be performatively shocked in order to express or illustrate your points more, but it seems to be kind of presumptive and dismissive

...at the same time, you could be right, i wouldn't know because i haven't been in a position where i could feasibly apply it and understand what it looks like

hmmn, this is difficult to find words for, words that can better illustrate what exactly is happening in my mind with it... i'm not sure if i'm able to read how what you're saying actually addresses what i mean by those statements. to prod and maybe clarify further for myself, what would you do if you find that the time you've invested in that close alternative is itself also subverted by finding out you may not be able to apply it as you originally sought to from your own interests? what if instead it's abstracted or localized to a particular range of expertise that focuses away from the software and hardware and sciences you love/know and instead directs it to something more businesslike or administrative, or otherwise if it points the likely careers you're trained for in a different realm entirely to what your interests were settled on?

but like, note that i dont mean to imply you're misunderstanding something bc i dont really know that, i probably am just not reading correctly from what you're suggesting or trying to convey

in my case, i don't know what i realistically am able to imagine myself doing with college/university, though i seem to believe i'd love to work/explore with art (and maybe animation) and music (production-oriented) and game development and web development

but i have other interests as well, often more sociological or behavioral-science related, but i would fear things around how they may be centered around applications that are restricted to a few kinds of professions i'm not interested in that i may not even be able to access anyway, and where everything i learn is skewed to that instead of my scope of possible interdisciplinary interests in how sociological phenomena connect with other ecosystems of psychology or infrastructure or philosophy or policy

other interests like a subtle inspiration from architecture and interior design is involved too

for me it's just not really clear what that all looks like in practice, and i am very very risk-averse about active decisions toward something that i don't understand the implications of

Achromalia wrote:

in my case, i don't know what i realistically am able to imagine myself doing with college/university, though i seem to believe i'd love to work/explore with art (and maybe animation) and music (production-oriented) and game development and web development

Well I know you to be a music artist, so that's the primary direction in my mind I figured you would go for. Mind you, I was totally unaware of the other interests you mentioned you have. So given the previous train of thought, that music is your interest, and contingently are really good and are improving at it, I see you going for that in college. Then applying my suggestion would have you go for something supplemental to music production in college. Now I have no idea what majors exist in the relm of music, but suffice to say, it would be most useful if it provides you knowledge enabling you to create sellable works in the future.

Anything on that new discovery where ocean rock produce oxygen

brudda i missed ur science stuffs im just enjoying rn to see that ur still the same since the old days

Luqanted wrote:

brudda i missed ur science stuffs im just enjoying rn to see that ur still the same since the old days

<3

ah, yes "science" and NOT MAGIC! of course !

A gamma ray burst was observed 2 years back that happened 2 billion light years away. Because it was pointed right at us, it was the brightest one we have ever seen. So much so it blinded many of the telescopes that are used to see such things, and had a measurable effect on the Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere (slightly more ions, tiny fluctuations in magnetic field, that sorta stuff).

Scientists use a standardized method of statistical analysis to determine its emission spectrum (think of it as putting a light through a prism and seeing what the colors are). Certain atoms reflect certain wavelengths of light, certain atoms absorb. This emission spectrum would tell what something is made out of. Scientists have long thought that gamma ray bursts have a smooth emission spectrum - they are made of just energy.

Now comes this new paper. A scientist decided to do a different type of statistical analysis and it revealed a spike at 12 Mev. For reference, electron-positron annihilation (matter and antimatter) produces gamma rays at 1.02 Mev. In fact, the paper says it's likely electrons and postitrons. The way you get 12 Mev from 1.02 Mev is traveling at 99% the speed of light. So the gamma rays are blueshifted as they come toward us.

So now scientists need to go through all previous gamma ray bursts and see if this spike exists in those as well. Most would be much harder to analyze because we got lucky this thing was so intense and pointing right at us. If they do find spikes, then it would be another step to figuring out how these GRBs are made.

Scientists have detected anti-helium in space. The weirdest part is the large number of detections of the stuff AND in different isotopes. To give you a perspective on why this is so weird: anti-matter is REALLY rare. Like positrons are detected as a result of particle collisions with the atmosphere because they absolutely dont last long before running into normal matter annihilating it. Anti-hydrogen is even rarer. That stuff is expected to be detected as anti-protons from stuff like neutron star collisions. Now anti-helium is an entire different ballpark. You need two anti-protons AND one or two anti-neutrons, and both cases were detected. Basically that stuff shouldn't exist. So begins the hunt for where where the stuff came from

Chad Sabine enjoyer.

All this science and abraker still can't make vaccines for Trashipitus

Tad Fibonacci wrote:

All this science and abraker still can't make vaccines for Trashipitus

I am close, I feel it

The Wow! Signal is a famous signal that was observed around the beginning of radio astronomy. Back then it was hypothesized that if aliens would communicate with other aliens they don't know the language or technology of, the most likely radio frequency they would do it on is the one where hydrogen emit photons when its electron is flipped. When observed it was the most, and still is, one of the most powerful signals seen at that frequency. So the scientific community got excited because that might me aliens are really out there. However, it was never seen again, so this made it unlikely it was aliens. Scientists would spend decades trying to explain what the signal is and where it came from.

Now there is explanation of what it is: A radio laser! So it turns out when a star flares up, either through a coronal mass ejection or some other process, that ionized material is able to mix with hydrogen rich nubulae, producing conditions just right to cause the hydrogen atoms' electrons to flip and make photons at just that frequency. And if you consider a magnetar, a neutron star with a very powerful magnetic field, then you basically get a radio death ray of astronomical proportions.

A REALLY nice video that explains probability, mathematical formula for surprise, and the cross-entropy function used in machine learning algorithms





A video that derives the formula for surface minimization based on how soap bubbles get tighter. Unless you have Calc 3 under your belt this might look alien to you

Winnayace

abraker wrote:

The Wow! Signal is a famous signal that was observed around the beginning of radio astronomy. Back then it was hypothesized that if aliens would communicate with other aliens they don't know the language or technology of, the most likely radio frequency they would do it on is the one where hydrogen emit photons when its electron is flipped. When observed it was the most, and still is, one of the most powerful signals seen at that frequency. So the scientific community got excited because that might me aliens are really out there. However, it was never seen again, so this made it unlikely it was aliens. Scientists would spend decades trying to explain what the signal is and where it came from.

Now there is explanation of what it is: A radio laser! So it turns out when a star flares up, either through a coronal mass ejection or some other process, that ionized material is able to mix with hydrogen rich nubulae, producing conditions just right to cause the hydrogen atoms' electrons to flip and make photons at just that frequency. And if you consider a magnetar, a neutron star with a very powerful magnetic field, then you basically get a radio death ray of astronomical proportions.

So it turned out it was not only a false lost media case with that alledged recording, but now a radio laser.

The Higgs Boson was a very hyped discovery back in 2012. For most we just know it as the "god particle". For scientists it was the explanation where matter gets its mass from. However that is not entirely true because the Higgs Boson only contributes 1% to the mass of matter, and more explanes the mass of the weak force Z and Y bosons than anything.

The true source of mass for all matter we interact with actually comes from the binding evergy within gluons that hold the quarks in protons and neutrons together. This new development attempts to simulate what goes on in protons and neutrons, revealing a chaotic soup of gluons dancing around the up and down quarks the particles are made of. Scientists also managed to pull together data to determine that the strong force the gluons carry plateaus at a certain point when you have gluons far enough away. This is unlike the magnetic or gravitational force, which becomes less the further you get from the source.



Now come my own throughts. So what does this really mean and how does mass actually come from this?

Matter is confined energy, and confined energy has mass. You let a massless photon bounce back and forth in a massless "box" (really just empty space) then the photon in that space will have mass. Anything that jiggles back and forth produces mass, massless things included. Yes, hot things are also just ever so slightly more massive than cold things.

Depending on the energy things can be more or less massive. The more often energy moves between two points the more massive the "thing" encompassing the energy and those two points are. It has more inertia and it has a greater gravitational attraction. More inertia because something external needs to put in more energy to move the "bouncing" energy from its spot. More gravitational attraction because... well this one is less clear. We kinda never solved the whole quantum gravity thing.

Machine learning is a subject very near and dear to me. This video does a fantastic job explaining how information is encoded in AI.

Basically the AI learns what kind of scales are needed as it tries to sort out information it is training on: how masculine or feminine something is? Put that on an axis. How fake or real something is? Put that on an axis. Family vs stranger? You guessed it, it's own axis!

So with all the many things you can put on an axis, you get vectors [x, y, w, ...] that are many dimensions. GPT-3 has about 12,000 of those dimensions. The most interesting part is that the AI learns relations in a way you can do math on them. Say you got a family scale going from [-x, +x] and -x is closer to sibling and +x is closer to parent. Well if you take the point where "mom" and "dad", say something like [ 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, ...] and subtract x from it (make it closer toward sibling) you get [ -2.0, 3.0, 4.0, ...] which now corresponds to "sister" and "brother".

I need to write another couple paragraphs explaining how the AI processes questions such as "does Michael Jordan play basketball?", but the video explains that much better than I can do in text.

abraker wrote:

Machine learning is a subject very near and dear to me. This video does a fantastic job explaining how information is encoded in AI.

Basically the AI learns what kind of scales are needed as it tries to sort out information it is training on: how masculine or feminine something is? Put that on an axis. How fake or real something is? Put that on an axis. Family vs stranger? You guessed it, it's own axis!

So with all the many things you can put on an axis, you get vectors [x, y, w, ...] that are many dimensions. GPT-3 has about 12,000 of those dimensions. The most interesting part is that the AI learns relations in a way you can do math on them. Say you got a family scale going from [-x, +x] and -x is closer to sibling and +x is closer to parent. Well if you take the point where "mom" and "dad", say something like [ 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, ...] and subtract x from it (make it closer toward sibling) you get [ -2.0, 3.0, 4.0, ...] which now corresponds to "sister" and "brother".

I need to write another couple paragraphs explaining how the AI processes questions such as "does Michael Jordan play basketball?", but the video explains that much better than I can do in text.

ok as much as i dont yet understand how to talk about anything like this in its field of science and have barely held any enduring passion in this as an interest at the moment, i actually have wondered about this for an incredibly long time... the ways that human characteristics and their contexts can be systematized, the hope of effectively and accurately simulating what our ecosystems appear to be and what it is that they functionally enable, really just any form of modelling the world around me in an attempt to understand it

like, you noted the "masculine/feminine" "axis(?)", which is something that i would've thought should seem very extremely challenging to quantify when you have billions of people with subtly variable concepts of what that means and what basis on which that's to be determined-- and those things may be dependent on different anchor points entirely... sometimes one varying proportion of a population will interpret it based on dictionaries, another population would maybe try to tether it to their respective concepts of something more "essential/intrinsic" in physical character/function in a way that other things are suited with somehow (but according to what premises?), or another population could carry it as some vague generalization of what others describe as "masculine/feminine" in anything from someone's behavior/interests to their physique/capabilities

...all of those frameworks and more, interpreted in a variety of populations based on their experiences with mosaic-like cultures and... there's so much to type that i can't clearly even conceive of and categorize in a way i trust to be accurate/true, and this is just one thing we're trying to quantify/qualify

i feel so dumb trying to describe what i mean, i dont have the right words for it and have so little perspective so everything i'm saying feels so imprecise, but;; there is so much to attach all of this to, it's such an immense scope of information to gather from

i dont know if anything described here will necessarily fulfill that (i have not watched the embedded video yet and might not do it at all, depending on what my attention can sustain right now, since im making music and playing thread necromancy at the same time), but i feel like this is one of many reasons why i could at least try to explore that

...but it's hard to know if that would really be verisimilitudinously representative (that is probably the longest word i've impulsively typed in a long time o.o words my beloved) and intuitive for trying to understand or categorize or search for anything...

I knew this vid would end up here, 3B1B is great.

i actually have wondered about this for an incredibly long time... the ways that human characteristics and their contexts can be systematized, the hope of effectively and accurately simulating what our ecosystems appear to be and what it is that they functionally enable, really just any form of modelling the world around me in an attempt to understand it

I get the same feeling as well, and is the main reason why I decided to work on pp dev as a hobby. I set experiments consistenting of maps for players to do and in the process discovered the relationship between distance, cs, angles, note speed, etc

like, you noted the "masculine/feminine" "axis(?)", which is something that i would've thought should seem very extremely challenging to quantify when you have billions of people with subtly variable concepts of what that means and what basis on which that's to be determined-- and those things may be dependent on different anchor points entirely...

So the thing is it's still hard to quantify - accurately. How the AI quantifies is only good as the information you give it. Like if you only give it images of females with black, brown, or blond hair, and males with black, brown, blong, and ginger hair it will likely think a person with ginger hair is not female. So instead of attributing gender to facial features it took the simpler, and incorrect, way of categorizing gender by relating it to hair color

Scientists figured out how to use yellow food dye to make skin transparent. Has been tested on mice, still waiting to test on people. But imagine if this actually does work. Halloween will never be same again!

abraker wrote:

Scientists figured out how to use yellow food dye to make skin transparent. Has been tested on mice, still waiting to test on people. But imagine if this actually does work. Halloween will never be same again!

awaiting a new tiktok trend...

Scientists managed to play back the tectonic plates backward in time some half billion years and found that 466 million years ago there were 21 odd crators scattered across the equator. What's odd is that that the chances of all such impacts being centered across the equatorial line like that is very unlikely... unless...

So new evidence suggests that 466 million years ago an asteroid came by Earth and it got broken up, producing a ring around Earth for a few ten million years. This also coincidentally matches a cooling event from same time period, deduced from oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 isotope ratio in old fossils (water with oxygen-16 is expected to eveporate more than 18, so lack of evaporation implies ice sheets, more info here).

For context the cambrian explosion, which is when these armadillo like critters were Earth's overlords, happened 500 million years ago. So basically this is pretty much what ended that party.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X24004230?via%3Dihub

Also located in the paper's references is this global temperature across time periods graph which I found interesting. For reference modern day is around 20C.

damn earth got divorced what a whore

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

whats 9 + 10.

Noreu wrote:

whats 9 + 10.

3

Patatitta wrote:

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

why do you think that?

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

why do you think that?

idk, it's just not as appealing to me, I think in many ways that me liking science was a response to other stuff, it was part of my identity, I wasn't a normie that liked common things like football, instead I was cool and smart because I saw science videos on youtube, but as time passed and I kinda understood that thought process was idiotic I slowly lost interest, and given that now it's something that really doesn't affect me personally in any way whatsoever it's hard to have the same passion for it as I once had

Patatitta wrote:

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

why do you think that?

idk, it's just not as appealing to me, I think in many ways that me liking science was a response to other stuff, it was part of my identity, I wasn't a normie that liked common things like football, instead I was cool and smart because I saw science videos on youtube, but as time passed and I kinda understood that thought process was idiotic I slowly lost interest, and given that now it's something that really doesn't affect me personally in any way whatsoever it's hard to have the same passion for it as I once had

Understanding the world around you is cool though.

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

why do you think that?

idk, it's just not as appealing to me, I think in many ways that me liking science was a response to other stuff, it was part of my identity, I wasn't a normie that liked common things like football, instead I was cool and smart because I saw science videos on youtube, but as time passed and I kinda understood that thought process was idiotic I slowly lost interest, and given that now it's something that really doesn't affect me personally in any way whatsoever it's hard to have the same passion for it as I once had

Understanding the world around you is cool though.

the thing is when you watch a video about science stuff and you think you understand it do you really? sometimes its well explanied and easy to understand but other times hard concepts are explained and you can only kind off get it but never really get it. The only science stuff that i still kinda like is stars and space stuff but its more in like a oh look pretty things way

Reyalp51 wrote:

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

why do you think that?

idk, it's just not as appealing to me, I think in many ways that me liking science was a response to other stuff, it was part of my identity, I wasn't a normie that liked common things like football, instead I was cool and smart because I saw science videos on youtube, but as time passed and I kinda understood that thought process was idiotic I slowly lost interest, and given that now it's something that really doesn't affect me personally in any way whatsoever it's hard to have the same passion for it as I once had

Understanding the world around you is cool though.

the thing is when you watch a video about science stuff and you think you understand it do you really? sometimes its well explanied and easy to understand but other times hard concepts are explained and you can only kind off get it but never really get it. The only science stuff that i still kinda like is stars and space stuff but its more in like a oh look pretty things way

I don't always understand everything but with time learn more and understand more complex stuff.
You're not gonna become an expert by watching youtube vids but having a basic+ understanding of various subjects is cool.

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

why do you think that?

idk, it's just not as appealing to me, I think in many ways that me liking science was a response to other stuff, it was part of my identity, I wasn't a normie that liked common things like football, instead I was cool and smart because I saw science videos on youtube, but as time passed and I kinda understood that thought process was idiotic I slowly lost interest, and given that now it's something that really doesn't affect me personally in any way whatsoever it's hard to have the same passion for it as I once had

Understanding the world around you is cool though.

a lot of science isn't really about the world around me, it's about the world really far away or facts and stuff that honestly I can pretty much live well without, it's not information I currently reject if I just happen to learn it but it's not something that excites me too much or something i'm going to go out of my way to learn

Patatitta wrote:

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

why do you think that?

idk, it's just not as appealing to me, I think in many ways that me liking science was a response to other stuff, it was part of my identity, I wasn't a normie that liked common things like football, instead I was cool and smart because I saw science videos on youtube, but as time passed and I kinda understood that thought process was idiotic I slowly lost interest, and given that now it's something that really doesn't affect me personally in any way whatsoever it's hard to have the same passion for it as I once had

Understanding the world around you is cool though.

a lot of science isn't really about the world around me, it's about the world really far away or facts and stuff that honestly I can pretty much live well without, it's not information I currently reject if I just happen to learn it but it's not something that excites me too much or something i'm going to go out of my way to learn

Pretty much any fictitious story doesn't affect anyone, but people like to consume those stories because it stimulates ideas and imagination. Science should stimulate ideas and imagination in a similar way, but in a more tangible aspect because it is related to the reality we find ourselves in. For example, I don't think knowing how star systems form helps me day to day, but it does awe me and more grounded in the physical reality.

Going off on a tangent here, but I and my friend got into an argument some few weeks ago when I said our minds are merely electrochemical pulses in the brain. He respects science, but also rejects explanations that make people less than he believes them to be. Like in a "no way we are just merely a collection of atoms" kind of way. Instead he opts to believe there is some kind of "soul" element to our mind and will that cannot be attributed to physics. That the mind can will itself to do anything. It really rubs me the wrong way, and if he knew more about the neurology of the mind, he very likely wouldn't argue that. This is where I think an interest in science does help.

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

why do you think that?

idk, it's just not as appealing to me, I think in many ways that me liking science was a response to other stuff, it was part of my identity, I wasn't a normie that liked common things like football, instead I was cool and smart because I saw science videos on youtube, but as time passed and I kinda understood that thought process was idiotic I slowly lost interest, and given that now it's something that really doesn't affect me personally in any way whatsoever it's hard to have the same passion for it as I once had

Understanding the world around you is cool though.

a lot of science isn't really about the world around me, it's about the world really far away or facts and stuff that honestly I can pretty much live well without, it's not information I currently reject if I just happen to learn it but it's not something that excites me too much or something i'm going to go out of my way to learn

Pretty much any fictitious story doesn't affect anyone, but people like to consume those stories because it stimulates ideas and imagination. Science should stimulate ideas and imagination in a similar way, but in a more tangible aspect because it is related to the reality we find ourselves in. For example, I don't think knowing how star systems form helps me day to day, but it does awe me and more grounded in the physical reality.

Going off on a tangent here, but I and my friend got into an argument some few weeks ago when I said our minds are merely electrochemical pulses in the brain. He respects science, but also rejects explanations that make people less than he believes them to be. Like in a "no way we are just merely a collection of atoms" kind of way. Instead he opts to believe there is some kind of "soul" element to our mind and will that cannot be attributed to physics. That the mind can will itself to do anything. It really rubs me the wrong way, and if he knew more about how the neurology of the mind, he very likely wouldn't argue that. This is where I think an interest in science does help.

I think that comparasion is way off, science and art are way different, art is stuff human makes for other humans (mostly), they often evoke certain very curated feelings and ideas, science is just something that exists, you can probably find meaning in science as well, but it's not really the same thing, science is more like something that you like, yeah it's not necessarily going to affect your daily life, but it also doesn't really need to, it's like liking trains or just having any other random thing that you enjoy

Patatitta wrote:

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

why do you think that?

idk, it's just not as appealing to me, I think in many ways that me liking science was a response to other stuff, it was part of my identity, I wasn't a normie that liked common things like football, instead I was cool and smart because I saw science videos on youtube, but as time passed and I kinda understood that thought process was idiotic I slowly lost interest, and given that now it's something that really doesn't affect me personally in any way whatsoever it's hard to have the same passion for it as I once had

Understanding the world around you is cool though.

a lot of science isn't really about the world around me, it's about the world really far away or facts and stuff that honestly I can pretty much live well without, it's not information I currently reject if I just happen to learn it but it's not something that excites me too much or something i'm going to go out of my way to learn

Pretty much any fictitious story doesn't affect anyone, but people like to consume those stories because it stimulates ideas and imagination. Science should stimulate ideas and imagination in a similar way, but in a more tangible aspect because it is related to the reality we find ourselves in. For example, I don't think knowing how star systems form helps me day to day, but it does awe me and more grounded in the physical reality.

Going off on a tangent here, but I and my friend got into an argument some few weeks ago when I said our minds are merely electrochemical pulses in the brain. He respects science, but also rejects explanations that make people less than he believes them to be. Like in a "no way we are just merely a collection of atoms" kind of way. Instead he opts to believe there is some kind of "soul" element to our mind and will that cannot be attributed to physics. That the mind can will itself to do anything. It really rubs me the wrong way, and if he knew more about how the neurology of the mind, he very likely wouldn't argue that. This is where I think an interest in science does help.

I think that comparasion is way off, science and art are way different, art is stuff human makes for other humans (mostly), they often evoke certain very curated feelings and ideas, science is just something that exists, you can probably find meaning in science as well, but it's not really the same thing, science is more like something that you like, yeah it's not necessarily going to affect your daily life, but it also doesn't really need to, it's like liking trains or just having any other random thing that you enjoy

Comparing story to art is an incorrect interpretation of what I am trying to convey. Science is definitely not meant to invoke feelings, but I guess feelings and the artistic liberty is one of the first things that come to mind when you think of a good story. I was thinking along the lines of world building and what makes one immersed in the fictitious world being depicted. To me science is the world building of the non fictitious story we find ourselves in.

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

abraker wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

this morning I watched interestellar, kinda made me think, I used to like science when I was in highschool but i've kinda fallen out of love with it, it's just whatever to me now

why do you think that?

idk, it's just not as appealing to me, I think in many ways that me liking science was a response to other stuff, it was part of my identity, I wasn't a normie that liked common things like football, instead I was cool and smart because I saw science videos on youtube, but as time passed and I kinda understood that thought process was idiotic I slowly lost interest, and given that now it's something that really doesn't affect me personally in any way whatsoever it's hard to have the same passion for it as I once had

Understanding the world around you is cool though.

a lot of science isn't really about the world around me, it's about the world really far away or facts and stuff that honestly I can pretty much live well without, it's not information I currently reject if I just happen to learn it but it's not something that excites me too much or something i'm going to go out of my way to learn

Pretty much any fictitious story doesn't affect anyone, but people like to consume those stories because it stimulates ideas and imagination. Science should stimulate ideas and imagination in a similar way, but in a more tangible aspect because it is related to the reality we find ourselves in. For example, I don't think knowing how star systems form helps me day to day, but it does awe me and more grounded in the physical reality.

Going off on a tangent here, but I and my friend got into an argument some few weeks ago when I said our minds are merely electrochemical pulses in the brain. He respects science, but also rejects explanations that make people less than he believes them to be. Like in a "no way we are just merely a collection of atoms" kind of way. Instead he opts to believe there is some kind of "soul" element to our mind and will that cannot be attributed to physics. That the mind can will itself to do anything. It really rubs me the wrong way, and if he knew more about how the neurology of the mind, he very likely wouldn't argue that. This is where I think an interest in science does help.

I think that comparasion is way off, science and art are way different, art is stuff human makes for other humans (mostly), they often evoke certain very curated feelings and ideas, science is just something that exists, you can probably find meaning in science as well, but it's not really the same thing, science is more like something that you like, yeah it's not necessarily going to affect your daily life, but it also doesn't really need to, it's like liking trains or just having any other random thing that you enjoy

Comparing story to art is an incorrect interpretation of what I am trying to convey. Science is definitely not meant to invoke feelings, but I guess feelings and the artistic liberty is one of the first things that come to mind when you think of a good story. I was thinking along the lines of world building and what makes one immersed in the fictitious world being depicted. To me science is the world building of the non fictitious story we find ourselves in.

well, it may be that for you, but not for me, that's the point

We need an element tier list

This paper attempts to explain the Fermi Paradox in a unique way: Do we have a limit to how much energy we can produce before the Earth gets too hot? No this is not taking into account Global Warming or fossil fuels... kinda. Instead this paper basis its reasoning on thermodynamics - no energy production is perfect and always produces waste heat. Right now we collectively consume about 200 PWh of energy (source), which produces relatively insignificant waste heat.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.06737


Here we have K on the left representing Kardashev scale.
- Kardashev 1: Civilization uses all of planet's resources
- Kardashev 2: Civilization uses all of solar system resources
- Kardashev 3: Civilization uses all of galaxy's resources

a represents Energy growth consumption rate. So
- blue: energy increase 1% per year
- red: energy increase 2% per year
- yellow: energy increase 3% per year
- green: current trend line

As you can see we're on pace to become a Kardashev 1 civilization in somewhere between 300 and 500 years.

The paper uses T0 = 14.85 C as the Earth's current average temperature. The paper then proposes 2 point scenarios:
1. An increase to 21 C (∆T / T0 ≈ 0.02) - global biodiversity collapse
2. An increase to 57 C (∆T / T0 = 0.15) - would be humid as fuck. Imagine the whole world a suana

Then the paper establishes the relationship between energy consumption and heating, and plots the various energy consumption increase rates to get this:



So remember "heat stress temperature" is biodiversity collapse, "moist greenhouse temperature" is an earth suana. So according to this a civilization would cook itself before even reaching Kardashev 1

It then establishes the following:
- At 1% energy consumption growth - cooked in 600 - 700 years
- At 2% energy consumption growth - cooked in 300 - 350 years
- At 3% energy consumption growth - cooked in 200 - 250 years

This means the maximum tech advancement a civilization would be able to achieve before cooking itself is Kardashev 0.85 - 0.88. This heavily assumes the following:
- All energy is produced on Earth and not space
- The civilization's energy consumption keeps on increasing and does not level off
- The planet is Earth-like

In short, we won't achieve Kardashev 1 status without going into space. In fact we will need to do that ideally within the next 200 years or we going to either stagnate or burn ourselves to hell.

edit: Also a pet-peeve of mine - even if you follow the lowest trend line of energy consumption increasing by 1%, this gives us Kardashev 3 status in a couple 10,000 years. There is no way that's possible according currently known laws of physics because it would take at least a 52,850 years traveling AT LIGHT SPEED to cover just the radius of the milky way. So more than likely either warp drives will need to be invented by then or that growth needs to become <1% after Kardashev 2