Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1368. page

>>8355125
No

they didn't even understand the concept of gravity at that time

>>8355125
Unknown and can't be verified or disproved. It is assumed they did not.

>pic
>congo blacks in Egypt

lol

First, moderate humility with open-mindedness

Then, you need to have sufficient dopamine and endorphins to actually do fucking learning and work

Then, read books everyday, read philosophy to supplement your STEM learning, interact with academics but don't get caught up in their authoritarianism (I said it's this way so you must believe me)

God I don't know it's pointless anyway

Smoke weed occasionally to expand your mind meme, but it actually does

>>8356880
>Smoke weed occasionally to expand your mind meme, but it actually does
But it causes paranoia senpai.

>>8356885
Maybe a little paranoia is needed to balance out naivety

Many times I have been told by therapists and "experts" that my thoughts were irrational and negative. Then my "irrational" thoughts would be proven true and the bad thing would happen.

>>8356515
Do you think sentience could be derived from consumption of psilocybin during our "consciousness" evolution 100,000 years ago?

>>8356525
I don't have evidence to the contrary, but there is none to support it either. Except perhaps for the observation hardly any species consume psilocybin containing fungi, including our close relatives. I doubt that it played any major role.

>>8356515
>recently, the conclusions of thousands of fMRI based studies are called into question b/c some faggots can't into statistics or coding or something

?
pls address the issue

I find it hard to imagine how he wouldn't
Tesla and SpaceX are not going to suddenly go bankrupt, and he'll be spending all the profits on the shit he wants, such as going to mars.

Sure but would it not be saver to like go somewhere closer first like the moon.

Amber heard is gonna still steal all of his money and spend it on makeup

A vapid Stacey will be the thing between humanity and Mars.

All human DNA are within .04% points of similarity to each other. If there is truth to it this it would be hard to fucking tell because other animals like those birds or with dog breeds don't come near that close.

Personally I just blame poor people.

>>8345977
Yes, it's right. And no, is a not a conspiracy that "hide" that fact, is just too much of hot topic to get into

Pseudoscience. The only other species in your pic is abbos, the rest are all homo sapiens sapiens.

>>8352021
>3 days ago
Hiro's gone m8
Anyways, /sci/ luckily is one of the better boards on 4chan, probably because most /pol/tards and shitposters don't bother going anywhere near something more advanced than the quadratic formula

???

Can /sci/ mods start deleting uni threads?

>>8357080
Neither, it was a gift.

>>8357080
It depends on the type of maths.

For example, take an identity like
[eqn]\text{sin}^{2}\;\theta+\text{cos}^{2}\;\theta=1[/eqn]
This would have to be discovered, sin and cos always had this property, so it couldn't be invented.

However, take something like a complex numbers. These didn't necessarily exist in maths before, so they were invented.

File: gwa-01.jpg (214KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1280x1024px

>>8357080
invented

What?

>>8352849
define nutritional value

You'd probably burst into flames

>50 questions
dropped

File: laughtilyoureblueorig.jpg (33KB, 375x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 375x300px

>>8350594
>this is why i suck with social interactions!

File: untitled.jpg (55KB, 953x225px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 953x225px

>>8350594
there's no way someone could legitimately get 50 on this

>>8351132
7

>>8351378
I think you can do it in 5?

6v6, select heaviest group
3v3, if both are the same weight do 3v3 the lighter group
Now do 1v1 with each of the 3 in the anomalous group against a known correct weight ball from the other 6.

Worst case: ball is lighter, ball is last or second last tested: 6v6, 3v3, 3v3, 1v1, 1v1

That's the best I could come up with.

>>8351382
That's ideal; there are 2*12=24 possible scenarios, which is more than the 2^4=16 outcomes which could be determined in 4 weighings.

True answer: Where your passion lies

>>8343406
This guy gets it. Unless your passion is philosophy because holy shit, what a terrible major.

african american studies

Hidden practice in certain circles.
Class based, commoners are not in the club.

Barring ethical and engineering issues ("Making your kids awesome is and because muh feels" or "We don't have the technology, methods, or understanding of genetics to do this as X level"), there's nothing wrong with it.

One could argue the fears of "adapting too slowly" are misplaced as we as humans could adapt as needed without having to "wait" for it to happen.

Of course the sheer scale and number of factors involved are daunting so I'd say we should solely dip our toes in, not dive in head first. Getting rid of Alzheimer's susceptibility or down syndrome instead of MUH 6,000,000 IQ ARYAN SUPERMEN.

>>8354186
>are there some scientific reasons against eugenics by genetical engineering ?
Not really.

>is there any reason besides moralistic chatter that would speak against an exclusive selection of the most intelligent embryos?
Yes.

>ive heard arguments like the alleged reduction of genetic diversity that might lead to a lesser adaptation speed, but isnt that wrong ? how would you decrease the diversity if you were to shift the bell curve in one direction ?
Genetic diversity constitutes a pool of differences which constitute some kind of biological resistance to things like viruses, cancer, bacteria with certain features, etc. Selecting the "most intelligent embryo" in itself may or may not correlate with these traits. There's no reason to consider "artificial selection" differently from any other kind of selection (natural, sexual, post-copulatory). They all entail benefits and risks which are roughly like some kind of brownian motion machine for species survival.

If your goal is survival of the species, you want as many people as possible to be as different as possible. If you're willing to risk disease-based disaster in order to advance society further, then some kind of eugenics program would be fine. It's not really a scientific question but an economic one. Some selection process is always working and we don't know the risks and rewards of it, either. Replacing one unknown with another unknown is a difficult tradeoff to assess.

>>8348019

It's not, but since most of our psychology is inherited from the time when Humans were apes in trees, we tend to respond more effectively against obviously dangerous, fast acting threats.

Challenge is necessary. But it's not necessarily war. People don't move their asses unless they depend on it, or if there's a demand and they profit from it.

There simply isn't a demand for flying cars, fusion, holographics devices and such.

File: thinkrouter.png (127KB, 497x349px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 497x349px

>>8348019
No. Tho science and technology does advance warfare.

>>8351695
1/11

>>8351695
We can solve this problem by writing out every single outcome of two dice rolls, but we can simplify the sample space because it's given that at least one dice is a 6. Therefore our remaining options are:
1,6
2,6
3,6
4,6
5,6
6,1
6,2
6,3
6,4
6,5
6,6
out of these 11 total possible outcomes, only 1 outcome has 2 sixes. Therefore the probability is 1/11.

1 in 6

>>8346893
higher temperature=more convection=bigger storms
biggers storms+higher sea level=more flooding

As for the benefits. It may not be bad if we had the infrastructure to deal with the consequences. Burning fossil fuels is one of the best ways to deal with challenges the climate presents us with.

>>8346906
>more convection

could this mean more wind power to harness?

>>8346893
>where I live I have never experienced a hurricane
And where is that? The middle of bumfuck nowhere?