Leaderboard

Maybe some lie, maybe some don't really understand their own feelings, maybe being attracted to the same gender and getting excited by watching other men and having sex are not the same? Just because someone feels excited watching something, doesn't mean they are instantly INTO that thing, in the real world. There is a large difference between reacting to seeing something, and doing it yourself. Although there probably is a subgroup of people that may not know they are homosexual/bisexual, or they feel moral disgust due to stigma/upbringing and therefore say they aren't sexually attracted? So many reasons.

Ok, I'd like to sincerely apologize for wasting your time. I had the wrong idea of what would happen to the reaction between Ammonia and hydrochloric acid. I had a completely idiotic idea of what would happen. Thank you for trying to reason with my stupidity. As for your criticisms, i'll be sure to be much more specific with my questions next time. Once again, thank you.

I have posted in this thread, so not making this statement as a mod. However, it would be great if we could stay on topic. Please open a thread in politics for example if other aspects are to be explored.

So worrying about who might die next of one thing means they won't worry about who might die next of covid-19? And when no one is well enough to go and work the fields and tend the animals, you think they won't care about the disease that is causing that? You are not making much sense. And not many people, even in the developing world, live in circumstances as dire as you seem to picturing.

Not everyone in first world countries are rich and not everyone in third world countries are poor. Your statement remains inaccurate.

You are endowing entities with a property which don't have the equipment to support it. Their behaviour will be wholly biochemically predetermined.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.unilad.co.uk/life/straight-people-dont-exist-finds-new-study/amp/ Recent studies show that the eyes dilate when people watch male and female porn in all men and women, regardless of their orientation, which indicates sexual arousal. It turns out all the bisexuals. But how are studies that say that sexual orientation is not a choice; Many factors influence sexual orientation, such as: genes, hormones, culture. Sexual orientation is very stable and is unlikely to change. Statistics say 90% of the heterosexual population. How can this be understood?

And that's not even counting all of the other forms of sameness like adjoint situations. There's so many different forms of "eh, that's sort of the same as this other thing in certain ways".

I don't think we know what magnetism "is" any more than we know what gravity "is". In both cases we have theories that describe how they work. Those might also describe "reality" but we have no way of knowing. But kudos for saying "gravitational wave" and not "gravity wave"!

No I don't think our terminology is different but my point was that 'equivalence' hides more levels of meaning. Consider the set of positive integers, n. This may be partitioned into two subsets, which form equivalence classes. n is odd n is even No two members of either subset are numerically equal. No two members of either subset are identical. Yet any even (or odd) number is equivalent to any other even or odd number. You can also demonstrate this with functions and mappings if you please. So in that case there are three levels of meaning to the word "equivalence" And before I was only describing two.

There have been similar experiments with images and even dreams. But it's not clear to what extent what is learnt from one individual can be used to "decode" someone else's visualizations: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/reading-dreams-scans_n_3016895 Yes and no. There are features common to all languages. And there are features that are unique to pretty much every language (or language family). For example all languages have words that are functionally equivalent to verbs, nouns and adjectives. So that probably represents something about the way the brain organises information. But which things are verbs, nouns and adjectives varies enormously between languages. So "hungry" is an adjective in English, a noun in Italian and a verb in Japanese (actually, there isn't a word for it in Japanese but...) There is something called the Sapir-Whorf(*) hypothesis which suggested that the language people speak controls or limits the things they can think about. But it is not, in general true. So, for example, some languages have fewer words for colours than others but that doesn't mean that, for example, a Japanese person can't tell the difference between blue and green; they just happen to use the same word for both. However, having words for concepts does make a very slight difference to how the brain processes things. So a common method in psychological tests is to time how long people take for a particular task. And it turns out that in a language that has more words for colours, people are fractionally faster to match the colour of objects. Or in languages where the grammar categorise objects by their shape, then people are fractionally faster to identify shapes. But this is milliseconds and there is probably more variation within a language group than there is between any two people from different language groups. (*) No, not the Klingon

I hope you gathered from the discussion that 'hydrogen' doesn't do this. I also hoped you would gather the need for greater specivity in Science and scientific discussion. (Your latest thread suggests otherwise as responders are struggling because you haven't defined your terms tightly enough.)

Well, we already had plenty that did not originate there (as well as a few pandemics) and we will have plenty of outbreaks within the next few years. It is mostly the confluence of factors that make a disease more likely become a pandemic, which includes e.g. effective human-human transmission, long incubation time, late/difficult detection, outbreak in areas with high connections to rest of the world etc. This time a lot of folks dropped the ball which resulted in a rather unprecedented situation. The question is whether the next one (which will come) will be contained better or not.

I do several sweeps, usually. The first is as described above. Then I often (unless it is a narrow focus topic e.g. in a mini-review) want to expand the scope and provide a bit of synthesis from other viewpoints. Here I often use the discussions I read or sometimes ideas in my head to perform another round of expanded search, but often with a special focus. E.g if the review is about a certain host-pathogen interaction and their peculiarities, I might check other pathogens (or hosts) and contrast these interactions and discuss similarities and unique aspects. But you are right, if there are time constraints I might focus in just getting the core papers. I do find it less satisfying, though.

Only semantically, the syntax remains valid.

So the sizes I have seen is 2.1 km and some say 4km. whats thé actual size