Leaderboard

Why do you want to increase the extent to which essential workers are exploited? To address the fundamental inequality of the "employer/ employee" relationship. If you think there are no consequences then you do not know enough about the issue to have a meaningful viewpoint on it. No; it's common sense. In what ways?

Well, to me that looks a typical distraction. Instead of negotiating for higher wages, just limit immigration? Hey here is a bad situation, let's not address it, but instead blame something else. Meanwhile, the effects of immigration on the UK labor market have been relatively small and mostly affect the segment of wages that are occupied by immigrants in the first place. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/ In 2021 about 240k work visa were approved (which seems a bit of a far cry from the claim of unrestricted immigration, especially compared to, say, Canada). Even assuming that all of those are unskilled workers the impact on salaries would be miniscule. And this is under the most favourable assumption. Also, I thought the discussion is about essential workers. Also based on the OP, are you assuming that essential work is only (or mostly) done by unskilled and predominant immigrant workers? Because other groups appear to benefit salary-wise from immigration.

Not heat capacity but Latent Heat of Vaporisation of water, i.e. the heat absorbed in turning liquid water into vapour. This is very high for water, due mainly to the need to break hydrogen bonding between water molecules as they break away from the liquid.

I use evaporation a lot when the weather gets uncomfortably hot. A/C isn't worth installing in the UK, but you do get a few days or weeks of discomfort in the summer. I wear very little, and spray myself now and then with water, or have a wipe over with a damp towel. It's super-effective, and no effort or cost. It's the evaporation that works for quite a while, much longer than the cold of the water.

But the topic was about a strike, not a labor shortage, and it's not about applicants not taking jobs because the pay is too low. Unemployed people are not the ones who go on strike, employed people do. They strike if e.g. wages are not rising quickly enough. (or benefits are being cut, or work conditions are deficient etc.)

No, I don't think that incredibly narrow view of psychiatry is appropriate.

That would seem to be at variance with the history I grew up with. The experiments that led to the expanding universe predated the 'steady state theory' So any proposal of steady state had to account for the lack of mass density change.

(Emphasis mine) As far as I know, in cosmology Inflation is not the same as Expansion. So You are discussing two different aspects of cosmology, introduced at different times? Expansion; Hubble 1930's Steady State, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle publication: 1948 Inflation; Alan Guth in 1979

Everything we do rests on things people before us did. For instance if someone had not already 'invented' calculations of what use would a calculation engine be ? I would imagine that the abacus was known to Babbage, but so what ? and Why would his knowledge of that be suprising ? He would probably also know that surveyors of his time measured by a physical chain. Each time it was laid along its length the survey would pick up a small stone and put it into his pocket. At the end of the survey he could then count how mainy chains he had measured. So a pocket full of stones is a sort of calculation device. In fact it is a sort of primitive memory.

No stains, no dyes, no paints, nor metal fasteners. Just wood and finish. Cool flex, bro.

Generally speaking, the Employer/ Employee inequality doesn't exist in the same way for government employment as it does for private employment. The same arguments for the right to hold the Employer hostage can't (generally again) be made. In the worst cases Unions are able to restrict the number of entry level government service jobs below optimum, turn them into better paying careers for their members at the expense of both the public and those wishing to enter the workforce, and limit any private competition. There are of course counter arguments, but one size does not fit all with regard to fairness of right to strike, and that is especially true for many government jobs.

Professor ? Thawne Tachyons and TNT, an unusual scattergun combination of questions. Did anyone say this is dangerous ? Here is an old picture from ICI to demonstrate this Have a nice day.

And by the way. It's an illuminating exercise to write down the equations of GR for a completely silly, trivial, flat spacetime, by calculating the Christoffel symbols, the geodesic equation, etc. in curvilinear coordinates. Of course, all the components of the Riemann tensor will be identically zero. But every definition and procedure for curved ST goes through. Here's a suggestion: Try and use your imagination, and write down a set of curvilinear coordinates that cover most of flat space, you can fill this totally dumb, seamless, featureless spacetime with (non-existent) "singularities" that all disappear once you introduce the proper set of (singular) coordinate changes that remove all your (non-existent) "singularities". Your toy model of field equations is the Laplace equation with the obvious boundary condition of all fields vanishing at spatial infinity. The genius of Kruskal was to realise that's kinda similar to what's happening with the Schwarzschild space time during a time when many people working on GR were still just chasing shadows. Stop chasing shadows, please. Now I do rest my case. --- One final caveat. If you insist on thinking of so-called vacuum energy in tems of energy content of some stuff, in the sense that it can be expressed as a density of "something", you're gonna run into problems. We call it "dark energy" for lack of a better word. But it's not really a local energy density. Dark energy does not dilute when you stretch your spacetime. This doesn't bode well with the proposal that it's due to a density of stuff filling in spacetime. And QFT certainly needs not negative energies. Those "cores" of negative energy would be quantum-mechanically unstable, it would violate causality, etc. You need a Hamiltonian bounded below for good reasons.

There’s nothing hard about your concept. Your concept is that you’ll release the AI and the world will thank you while showering you with rainbows and unicorns. Your entire premise requires full faith and trust from a diverse and varied global population, and it requires that trust be placed into a still not yet designed, still not yet built, still not yet trained AI. What precisely requires me to show you a PhD before you accept that you’re trying to sell us digital Jesus or ML Mohammed? I mean seriously, dude. It’s hard to take your claims of super advanced societal advancement through vaporware technology at all seriously when you can’t even figure out the quote function on a 2 decade old discussion forum platform. You measure the nutrient content of the soil and local rainfall. It’s not as hard as you make it out, and farmers are already using AI to help them decide which supplements their crops need, exactly what day to plant, and how to maximize yields. Yes. I heard you the first time, but you didn’t hear me when I responded. There’s no universal measure of fairness. Ask 10 different people what fairness means and ideas of equity will be tossed about, but if you ask them how to measure it you’ll get 10 different answers. The AI won’t be able to learn in the way you think unless you can clearly define for it what success and what failure look like. Doesn’t matter. You couldn’t even get this to work at the country, state, city, or even neighborhood level. Hell, I bet it’d even fail within a single family household. Those family members all have different ideas of how fairness should be realized.

Yes, it's likely. People who think deeply will consider difficult questions, whenever they live. It may well be both scientific and something else. There is certainly a broad scientific basis. There must also be - it's inescapable - a broad cultural basis. To what extent religion and politics imply is problematic, very difficult to determine. There are so many contributors to modern psychiatry, each with his and her own school of thought, biases, backgrounds, etc., you'd have to take that aspect case-by-case. No, I don't think think so. I absolutely do not believe that health care professionals are actively attempting to 'dehumanize' their patients or clients. I think the more valid question is: To what extent are mental health professionals influenced by the cultural norms and demands of their time and place? To what extent are they themselves convinced that adjustment to those norms is necessary to happiness. (You have to remember: every society demands a certain degree of conformity of its functional members.) Possibly. But the physiological aspect of emotional suffering cannot be ignored. This invariably happens when the helping professions gain social and economic status. A whole self-perpetuating system is set in motion, which is bound to influence the practice of those professions in a number of ways - most of those ways being opaque or completely invisible o the practitioners themselves, but felt by the clients and glaringly evident to the critics of the system. Like the young man mumbled: "....it's complicated..." There is too much material there to deal with in a forum post. In order to continue, I think it would be more productive to break down into simpler, separate questions or subject areas. And maybe - I know it's a big ask - leave the dead philosophers out of it FTM; they tend to add unnecessary complications.

There is an ongoing discussion on this, in Climate Science, started by Studiot titled "Floods and drouths", it's been going for a month. Maybe this should be merged ?

Not nearly as concerned as we should be about a government that's seeking to provoke it.

Leaching is a problem either method, and heat can aid the break-off of plastic nanoparticles into the food as well as leaching pthalates, PFAS, BPA, dioxins, etc. Best to transfer food from plastic packaging to a glass bowl, then heat. In fact, given that more thermal energy is transfered through the plastic, with your boiling method, it might be slightly worse. With microwaves, just water molecules inside the food mass are being agitated, so the plastic container is only warmed peripherally.

It's not that simple, because it's to do with the statistical distribution of kinetic energy among the atoms and molecules and how that alters with temperature. But certainly there would be a lot more atomic N, if nothing else were going on at such enormously high temperatures (see later in the post). There are two formulae in chemical thermodynamics which enable us to work it out. The first I've already mentioned: ΔG = ΔH - TΔS. We now have the values for this reaction, so we can say ΔG = 945 x 1000 - (16400 +273)x115, which gives a value of ΔG = - 9.75 x 10⁵ . (I add 273 to the temperature as it needs to be absolute, i.e in K rather than deg C.) The second formula is ΔG = -RTlnK, where K is the equilibrium constant, in this case (p(2n))²/p(n2), p(2n) being the partial pressure of atomic N and p(n2) being that of molecular nitrogen. So lnK = - ΔG/RT = 9,75 x10⁵/(8.32 x (16400 +273)) ~ 7. So that makes K ~ 1000. So there will be approx √1000 times, i.e. about 30 x, as much atomic N as molecular N2 at that temperature........ ...or would be, if there were no other processes set in train by such an astronomically high temperature. However, at such a temperature you would no longer have entirely nitrogen atoms! The 1st ionisation energy of N is 1400kJ/mol. You would have a lot of N+ ions and free electrons, i.e. a plasma. This temperature is about 3 times that of the surface of the sun ( refer @chenbeier 's earlier post ). So there you have it. The bonding in nitrogen is so strong that to break it you need to start breaking up the atoms themselves and have to resort to stellar temperatures. Best to look elsewhere for a practical way to store energy.

To me the obvious engineering solution involves the movement of people from areas of too little water to areas where there is plenty of water. We don't build massive engineering projects to move air underwater or move heat to the Arctic. Instead we limit the number of people who live under water or in the Arctic. Now that people in the Western US have overused their water resources, it is probably time to move their golf courses and pecan trees to an area that has plenty of water.

You have posted this in homework help. Are you working on some kind of project ? If so here are some more pointers. Babbage's wife, Ada Lovelace probably added more to computer theory than Babbage himself. But the great thing would be to separate the those who added practicality and those who developed theory. Both of these were needed in roughly equal parts. It is not known who invented the abacus, various civilisations in ancient history had some form or other. Later calculating machines were developed to, well to help calculate values for tables. Napier was the theorist and Outred the practical implementer (he invented the slide rule) Digital Theory probably started with DeMorgan. This is where Babbage came in with his analytical engine (the practical man) and Ada was the theorist. The next big development came before Turing's time and was still purely mechanical. Industry threw up the need for control of machines that required a series of steps. Hollerith invented the punch card system, which also started 'data processing'. Electricity was also beginning to make an impact and devices using electric switches (relays) followed by vlaves (american tubes) and then semiconductor devices were made. Von Neuman formalised the idea of 'the stored program architecture' originally using Hollerith cards and the modern computer was born. Turing did much theoretical work on the capabilities and limitations of such machines and invented the 'turing machine' as an idealised model. Now I have started your rehabilitation from the red marks with a +1 since you are showing some sense now. Keep it up and I hope you project, if you have one, goes well.

Adding to these excellent ideas, another path involves placing a sacrificial backer board tight against the workpiece being cut. Could be plywood or any scrap piece of any species really. It serves to reinforce the fibers and wood grains such that when the saw blade (or drill bit or chisel or planet or whatever) pushes through and you get less (or nearly zero) tear-out. Here especially a circular saw against a straight edge strikes me personally as being the easiest and cleanest. Hope it turned out well, and congrats on the new floor!

Have you seen a Chemosynthesis zone symbol before?