Appeasing authoritarians only delays the inevitable, if it even delays it at all. Trump wants direct control over the Fed to enrich himself. Killing useful groups over the culture war issues he uses as a (weak) cover for his actions doesn’t solve this core problem.
Even more surprising: the droplets didn’t evaporate quickly, as thermodynamics would predict.
“According to the curvature and size of the droplets, they should have been evaporating,” says Patel. “But they were not; they remained stable for extended periods.”
With a material that could potentially defy the laws of physics on their hands, Lee and Patel sent their design off to a collaborator to see if their results were replicable.
I really don’t like the repeated use of the phrase “defy the laws of physics.” That’s an extraordinary claim, and it needs extraordinary proof, and the researchers already propose a mechanism by which the droplets remained stable under existing physical laws, namely that they were getting replenished from the nanopores inside the material as fast as evaporation was pulling water out of the droplets.
I recognize the researchers themselves aren’t using the phrase, it’s the Penn press release organization trying to further drum up interest in the research. But it’s a bad framing. You can make it sound interesting without resorting to clickbait techniques like “did our awesome engineers just break the laws of physics??” Hell, the research is interesting enough on its own; passive water collection from the air is revolutionary! No need for editorializing!
The use of “quantum leap” isn’t about comparing the absolute size of the change to quantum phenomena. It’s about the lack of a smooth transition. Quantum leaps in physics are instantaneous transitions between states with no intermediate. That’s the idea with the colloquialism: a sudden shift from one state to another without a smooth transitional period.
Intent matters, and methods matter. But I think what the friend is missing is that the methods aren’t bad; op is using methods developed from scientific analysis of abused animals with the intent to ethically care for them. Coming back to intent, she clearly wants to help this guy who her training is identifying as having some kind of background of abuse. The methods might be a little crude in the sense that they were developed for animals and not for people (who are animals, but animals with several distinct qualities from other animals, like the ability to communicate complex ideas), and there are different, more well-adapted methods for people, but they’re only crude in comparison to those modern human-focused methods. They’re still quite effective, and I would still consider them ethical for use on humans when paired with an altruistic intent, which she seems to be conveying. As long as she still views the guy as fully a person, a peer, then I see nothing wrong here.
I cannot imagine already being married and going through that tectonic of a shift of worldview. I had pretty much figured out I couldn’t be Christian by the time I got to college and met the woman who would become my wife. She was still very strongly Christian, and I was okay with that and didn’t push anything. I’m just a naturally curious person and read a lot of nonfiction and like to talk about what I read, and she is a naturally curious person, too, so she would enjoy the conversations. And after talking about the history of philosophy and philosophical ideas and how that intersected with religion, she had a worldview-shattering realization that the concept of the soul wasn’t handed down by God to early Christians, it was borrowed from non-Christian philosophy that was around at the time in roughly the same geographic area. It was another in a long line of philosophical diffusion of ideas that happens everywhere all the time in human history. Nothing intrinsically earth-shattering in itself to students of history, but that was her equivalent of Rhett’s evolution moment.
It was devastating to her, and it took years for her to figure out who she even was after that. I think it worked out as well as it did partly because I came from the other side and had already thought through a lot of the questions (What is morality without God? What brings value to our lives without God? Etc.) and could help anchor her and prevent nihilistic spirals while she figured herself out. I can’t imagine being married to someone still very much entrenched in the worldview I realized I had to abandon. I honestly think I would be terrified of how they would react: I came into my realization on my own, and so it came as an internal struggle, but now presenting this major change in myself and the way I want to lead my life to my partner, I represent in a way an external threat to their worldview and their way of life. In the face of that kind of threat, people can act drastically differently from the kind of person you have come to know them as through normal interactions. And however they react, it’s going to set the course for the rest of both of your lives.
I’m going to have to watch the full interview.
What’s the y-axis, and how exactly are you measuring it? Anybody can draw an exponential curve of nothing specific.
He never actually says that exact phrase in the books. It’s a cultural misquote, like “beam me up, Scotty,” that somehow caught on in popular culture but wasn’t in the original source.
deleted by creator
People are making fun of the waffling and the apparent indecision and are missing the point. Trump isn’t flailing and trying to figure out how to actually make things work. He’s doing exactly what he intended: he’s holding the US economy for ransom and building a power base among the billionaires.
He used the poor and ignorant to get control of the public institutions, and now he’s using that power to get control over the private institutions (for-profit companies). He’s building a carbon copy of Russia with himself in the role of Putin. He’s almost there, and it’s taken him 2 months to do it.
She needs to get a new attorney.