File: 1454529530589.jpg (280KB, 1280x960px) Image search:
[Google]
280KB, 1280x960px
Tomorrow I'm gonna have the chance to ask Dava Newman (Deputy Administrator of NASA) some questions - I'm not sure about what though...
So what's the most interesting thing i can actually get some high-ranking official in a public setting to talk about? Ayy lmaos? SpaceX? Don't wanna waste the opportunity if theres actually something worthwhile to gain out of this...
11 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8138655
you're gonna have to give more context than "public setting".
>>
>>8138659
I dunno tho. Im meeting her with a class in an embassy, noone was really told more than to prepare some questions...
>>
>>8138659
well not an embassy but something like that...
File: Speed-of-light[1].jpg (108KB, 640x360px) Image search:
[Google]
![Speed-of-light[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ObVuyY0.jpg "Speed-of-light[1]")
108KB, 640x360px
If time stands still at the speed of light, why does light take time to travel from point A to point B?
12 Posts / 3 Images
View this topic
>>
general relativity doesn't affect photons
>>
>>8138592
Are you in the same reference frame as the photon?
>>
>>8138592
Protip: It doesn't.
File: 15-times-bill-nye-and-neil-degrasse-tyson-were-th-2-4937-1423864149-11_dblbig.jpg (47KB, 625x415px) Image search:
[Google]
47KB, 625x415px
Now even bishops make fun the the guy bill nye
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH_Njsa0zVQ
23 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8138542
Meh
>>
>>8138542
Fucking care. The only reason hes still doing that shit is because otherwise PBS would have his balls in a shrivel, mate.
>>
>>8138565
He could do actual work
What is chess talent? Do chess players have a high IQ? Would they be good at math or science?
15 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8138417
I'm a mathematician with a fairly high IQ and I'm a mediocre chess player.
>>
>>8138417
Unlike what a lot of shows and movies would have you believe, Chess does not equal intelligence. Don't get me wrong, Chess does require a certain deal of intelligence and these skilled chess players are smart.
However, the simple fact is that not all minds express themselves in the same manner. Chess as a game is a very rule based activity. The moment that you make one mistake or act in the wrong way, you can lose. And the simple fact is that not all people can manage that type of thinking.
So the simple answer to your questions are, 'Frame of Mind', 'For the Most Part', 'Unknown'.
>>
>>8138417
Like that guy said, yes and no. It does take a great deal of intellectual power to do well, but it's not all the case.
For one to do good in chess, a game based on very, very strict rules, you have to be creative, tactical, have good memory, and think outside the box; which are things that people with high IQs have.
But, an example of someone who is very good at chess (number one in the world) but does not have an IQ of 190 like Garry Kasparov is Magnus Carlsen. He is extremely good at chess but he isn't at the intellectual level of Kasparov.
It's like every game, you have people who aren't really "intelligent" but are really good, and then you have people who are very intelligent and are good.
To answer your other question, chess can be used as a tool to train the mind into thinking in certain ways with a very specific set of rules, including math and science. So, yes, if you're intellectually able to preform very well given these set of rules, while having the attributes to be able to succeed, you probably can and will do well with math and science.
What are some games that /sci/ plays?
I personally play some Dota and sometimes some Kerbal Space Program.
Fuckin Dota sometimes pisses me off more than relaxes me
44 Posts / 7 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8138344
Warframe mostly. Also Dead Space 3 currently
>>
FtD
WoT
Lots of single player games.
>>
Cool doggo
File: CGPGreySymbol.png (15KB, 250x250px) Image search:
[Google]
15KB, 250x250px
Just another pseudo-intellectual PopSci dude or legit?
19 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
He's about as factual as 10 minute long "science" videos get...
>>
Youtubers are entertainers
you simply don't get a lot of hits on actually legit science
you lose massive amounts if you do it, let's just take Crash Course as an example
Physics #11 and Economics 35 was uploaded on the same day
One has 44,530 views, the other has 97,740
both run on the same patreon, but the views tell you what's actually more popular, in the end it's about clicks.
If we take Economics we can say it as opportunity cost.
Who would go through the effort of making a good, long science video if nobody watches or appreciates it but a few geeks?
I do believe he's a good guy and trying, but it's as >>8138364 said.
The end result is a 10 minutes science video. What do you expect?
>>
>>8138394
I am not 13 so I don't watch Crash Course
Which one got the higher views?
File: 1462338603521.gif (613KB, 500x374px) Image search:
[Google]
613KB, 500x374px
We're rapidly approaching the point where people can be controlled by technology, right down to their emotions, thoughts, and genes. Who they are can be changed.
The real question is, who will benefit from this?
The people with access to ridiculously powerful technology, like doctors and army officers, won't want to be on the receiving end of this manipulation. Will it become a case of manipulate or be manipulated?
What will happen when designer babies become common? Will we see the rich become almost identical, or will some Darwinian selfishness survive?
37 Posts / 5 Images
View this topic
>>
Well obviously the future will benefit from this, damn, I wish I could see the day humanity ends itself...
Because that's bound to happen
Someones going to do some stupid shit, and its all over
>>
>>8138323
But everything ends, that's why I don't get the scientific terror that's grown up around GIs lately, we need to develop them to leave some form of civilisation behind when mankind dies out. It's an inevitable process.
>>
>>8138319
>like doctors and army officers
lol
The only ones that won't be manipulated are the ones doing the manipulating ie plutocrats.
>What will happen when designer babies become common?
The rich will probably try to benefit from it, but they usually care only about themselves, and since designer babies concerns the next generation, they won't care so much unless it somehow benefits their own lives. The common population will definitely benefit from designer babies though, if it becomes widespread.
If your question regards the general future of technology the social implications, this is the most likely scenario: the world continues with capitalism -> plutocrats control everything -> plutocrats get the best of the technology and try to become richer and more powerful with it -> they become more powerful to the detriment of the population -> when this reaches the point of no return, either the population revolts to overthrow the rich and succeed OR their manipulation continues in perpetuity, with no chance of reversal. Keep in mind this might not seem like it now, but we could be talking about a situation hundreds of years from now. The gap just grows larger and larger, and unless something disrupts it, it is inevitable that it reaches the breaking point.
File: heroMSSE.jpg (88KB, 762x300px) Image search:
[Google]
88KB, 762x300px
Is it possible to become a software engineer without having any knowledge in CS ?
Im planning to get a minors in software engineer , but have no experience in programming at all...
13 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
Software engineer without CS is like lemonade without lemons
>>
If by
>without having any knowledge in CS
you mean:
>without having any PRIOR knowledge in CS
Then yes, quite easily. Start studying. If not, then no.
>>
File: not good with computer.jpg (115KB, 612x600px) Image search:
[Google]
115KB, 612x600px
CS here. You could start learning the basics. Conditions, declaring variables (and variable types), loops and vectors are a start.
File: postburger.jpg (9KB, 263x191px) Image search:
[Google]
9KB, 263x191px
Do any of you /sci/entists ever get the feeling you are not that good with math/science in general?
Everyone (friends, family, even teachers once in a while) says I'm great with numbers and logic, all my classmates look up to me, I get very good grades and all that, but I still think that doesn't mean a lot. Sounding smart to people who don't know much about science is pretty easy (that's why popsci is so popular in first place).
I know that if I ever tried to rise above what has been already discovered by real scientists and mathematicians, I'd completely lost.
Anyone else share that feel?
12 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8137813
There's always room for improvement motherfucker.
Don't let contentment breed stagnancy.
>>
Yep. I get self doubt all the time. Walk it off and get back to work.
>>
>>8137813
>8137813
The more you learn, the more you realize how much you don't know. This is why normies think they know anything. Because they know nothing, and aren't even aware.
Anonymous
Reverse Monty Hall Problem 2016-06-11 22:29:56 Post No.8137518
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Reverse Monty Hall Problem 2016-06-11 22:29:56 Post No.8137518
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Reverse Monty Hall Problem
Anonymous
2016-06-11 22:29:56
Post No. 8137518
[Report]
[View this topic]
So in the original Monty Hall problem there are two losing doors and one winning door. If you switch after the losing door is removed you have a 2/3 chance of winning and if you don't you only have a 1/3 chance.
What if there are two winning doors, one losing door, and the host always removes a winning door after your selection? You have a choice to change your selection after a winning door is revealed. Do you switch?
At first glance it would seem like you shouldn't. You have a 2/3 chance of picking the winning door initially, and after a winning door is revealed you have a 1/2 chance of winning by switching. However the host is resetting the problem, decreasing your odds of winning if you switch. Wouldn't you always have a 1/2 chance of winning if you stayed or if you switched?
11 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8137518
>You have a 2/3 chance of picking the winning door initially, and after a winning door is revealed you have a 1/2 chance of winning by switching.
No. If you chose a winning door and switch, you lose. If you chose the losing door and switch, you win. Thus you have a 2/3 chance of losing if you switch.
>>
>>8137543
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
>>
>>8137518
Yes because it improves my chances of taking 5 niggas with me
File: 7394015.jpg (33KB, 600x400px) Image search:
[Google]
33KB, 600x400px
Anyway to get rid of "brain fog" and get back into the "grind?" I had to take two years off of Uni because of family stuff, but now I'm going back in the fall and I've been trying to get back into the grove of studying over the summer but can't really focus or stay motivated like before. Used to be able to focus and study for long periods of time and want to study, now it just feels different. .
Does it just get better if you keep on grinding? I signed up for a gym because I heard that helps.
20 Posts / 4 Images
View this topic
>>
Exercise will help as will getting out in nature for a while.
If you're into nootropics, I use Aniracetam (available online) and a choline source (many kinds out there, do some research to which will work best for you). Both help clearing brain fog.
You also might want to check out a supplement called FocusFactor which combines a bunch of brain booster supplements into one pill
>>
>>8137401
>nootropics
go away with that kiddie shit.
just grab some pervitin and get cracking
>>
>>8137401
OP here. Thanks for the info, I've actually been looking into nootropics. I just started caffeine and L-theanine and we'll see how that goes. I also got some Omega 3-6-9.
File: 2000px-Cubic_with_double_point.svg.png (72KB, 2000x2000px) Image search:
[Google]
72KB, 2000x2000px
There exists a concrete polynomial [math] P \in \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_9] [/math] (aka a polynomial of 9 variables with integer coefficients) such that the statement "There exist integers [math] m_1, \ldots, m_9 [/math] such that [math] P(m_1,\ldots,m_9) = 0 [/math]" is formally undecidable, i.e. neither provable nor disprovable in ZFC.
Furthermore, given any extension of ZFC, there will exist a polynomial with the same property with respect to it.
How does this make you feel? That something so concrete can be undecidable?
40 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8137298
It makes me wonder why exactly 9. Is it the lowest dimensionality for which that is true? I also doubt it's truthfulness. Have any sources?
>>
Prove your claim.
>>
>>8137298
It doesn't make me feel anything without seeing how this claim arises. Not interested in being parroted results.
File: WetzelDick.jpg (111KB, 722x940px) Image search:
[Google]
111KB, 722x940px
How to become a genius?
32 Posts / 3 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8137229
put in thousands of hours of dedicated and unceasing work into your chosen subject
>>
>>8137229
Work your ass of. Thats it.
>>
>>8137271
>2016
>choosing to become genius in just one subject
File: Homo_neanderthalensis_adult_male_-_head_model_-_Smithsonian_Museum_of_Natural_History_-_2012-05-17.jpg (118KB, 659x899px) Image search:
[Google]
118KB, 659x899px
Could someone please explain to me, a pleb tier undergrad, what Grothendieck did?
11 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8137131
He had a really big dick so we could say that he really grew a dick but because good grammar was not invented back then people did not know how to do past tense correctly so preople said he growed-a-dick so much that it became his nickname.
As time passed and most people forgot the origin people just pronounced the base of it like grouthadick and then it degenerated further into Grothendieck.
If you are talking with mathematicians then you might want to use Grothendieck but if you are talking with historians then growed-a-dick will be the only acceptable choice. But if you are talking with english majors then Grew a dick will be better.
>>
>>8137131
He went into hiding because his dick grew too big. He then donned the robes and beard of a wizard with a large dick, shunning society and it's average sized penises.
File: ead50d1eb5354459730eaa3da985736c.jpg (43KB, 500x720px) Image search:
[Google]
43KB, 500x720px
I recently watched a television program in which a group of scientists explored a cave in South-East Asia in order to study the wildlife that lived in it.
The cave had already been explored and mapped, and there was already a high level of knowledge of its animal inhabitants, which were primarily insects, bats, and pythons.
The study consisted of capturing several of the pythons, calculating their population density, taking measurements of length and so forth. The pythons were not taken out of the cave, all data was captured in the cave. The pythons were obviously in great distress when captured.
I get that science is in general a good thing, but I was struck but how purposeless and pointless this was. There was nothing to be gained from it, other than distressing the animals. It was science just for the sake of it, and completely amoral.
Why can't scientists just leave things like this alone? Why do they feel the need to know *everything*?
I'll tell you what I think. It's because science isn't concerned with knowledge - knowledge is power and there was no power to be gained by this - it's concerned with destroying all mystery in the universe.
20 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
4/10, was mildly annoyed.
>>
>>8137106
>I'll tell you what I think. It's because science isn't concerned with knowledge - knowledge is power and there was no power to be gained by this - it's concerned with destroying all mystery in the universe.
No, it's because scientists are selfish.
They evaluate the need to satisfy their curiosity as higher than the need to let things be.
>>
>>8137130
>selfish
sure