Leaderboard

Answer the question asked instead of evading with a new question of your own

Please keep in mind that most of us come to SFn for reasoned discussion relating to science. If I was looking for 'titillation' and wives boobs, I would visit PornHub. I don't expect that kind of content here.

Developmental biology is not really my forte, but a lot of developmental timing is related to humoral control (which affects gene expression), which is also dependent on factors such as nutrition. So there is a bit of a complex interplay and I am actually not sure whether there is simple model explaining these differences somewhere.

With regard to differences we should differentiate aspects related to development/maturation, which does seem to have measurable sexual dimorphism, to structural aspects. The knowledge on the latter and especially the question whether sex dimorphism in human brains actually exists is an everchanging discussion, which is highly dependent on our technology to measure these differences. In mature humans, the effect size seems to diminish, the more we measure. A fairly recent meta-analysis argues that most differences described are related to brain size rather than any functional differences, for example. This is, of course, not the question in OP, but I thought it might be worthwhile to mention, in case the discussion drifts into that area.

Is this the same study or a different one? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24343892/ These studies seem to indicate that the streamlining of connections in the brain reorganizes their functions to make them more efficient. Girls seem to mature faster than boys, probably because they're able to focus a bit better owing to reduced pathways leading to the information they need. It sounds like girls find the highways in their brains while boys are still driving around on back roads.

Iirc, girls optimize connections in the brain a bit faster than boys, leading to earlier development in several areas.

I'm not certain whether I agree with their arguments, but the data to your core question are well summarized here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6509633/

Ok now I have 2 more questions. 1. What compounds are simple and not dangerous? 2.What materials do I need, stuff like beakers, gloves, eye glasses, etc.

@Tom Booth's reports and our answers remind me more and more of the lyrics of Space Oddity, by David Bowie,

The unit we use on our side of the pond is the Scaramucci According to this it’s the Giant Sunda Rat, as sethoflagos mentioned https://a-z-animals.com/blog/8-shortest-living-animals-in-the-world/ “In the wild, longevity averaged about half a year” http://www.genomics.senescence.info/species/entry.php?species=Sundamys_muelleri

How about Prime Minister Liz Truss? 😄

That's easy to say from a distance. Parents don't really have the option of letting their children grow however nature intended: they have to be present, protecting, guiding, curbing destructive behaviour, encouraging the child toward social and financial success to the best of their ability and judgment. They themselves are products of a society and culture. Doing the best they know and believe, they may be seen as harmful by people with different views. They may not be aware that they're 'pushing' according to someone else's definition. Because we raise our children to fit into the world as we know it, we raise them incorrectly: we don't know the world they will inhabit.

As am I. Please avoid subtly attempting to dismiss me as some Pollyanna. I’m more than capable of supporting my position. There are many realities involved here, and one of them is withering while the other is not. Except you’re not being consistent in your logic. Parents push children into “you are male!!” and “you are female!!” directions every. Single. Day. You’re NOT arguing against that. You’re happy defending the status quo where parents “push” genders on their children which you happen to find acceptable. You accept that. You just don’t like when the conversation steers into same sex. Anyway, nobody here is arguing that parents ought to PUSH their children anywhere, only that they stay the hell out of the way and show some acceptance when children do decide for themselves that they feel different from the norm.

Who doesn't feel better when validated? 🤔 I'm so proud of the number of "lil green one's" I got, and humbly suggest, it should be more...

The pictures indicate this balloon has solar panels. So I'm not sure the plutonium story stacks up - unless for some reason it is the practice to provide both, which would seem to be a big weight penalty. But it makes sense to bring it down in shallow water for recovery and analysis of the bits, rather than have it smashed to smithereens after hitting the ground. No doubt the analysis will get used for political purposes, to put pressure on the Chinese.

There are quite a few mammals that typically will not survive into a second breeding season in the wild. Many, if not all of these can live for over two years in captivity, the Common Shrew included. So 'life span' is very dependent on context. The shortest average lifespans may simply reflect the highest predation rates rather than the animal's ability to survive longer if not preyed upon. The Common Shrew is often cited because it is a familiar animal to many in an influential part of the world. More so than say Mullers Giant Sunda Rat (Sundamys muelleri) of SE Asia which may be a better contender for some particular interpretation of your question. In many cases, there simply isn't enough research data available to provide any sensible answer. Long and the short: nobody knows (whatever you've read elsewhere on the internet).

The quote from Mirror.Mirror was Capt Kirk : "In every revolution there's one man with a vision" Bearded Spock : "Captain Kirk. I shall consider it" ( sorry, I'm a Star Trek geek )

Hope they are not looking over your shoulder then.

! Moderator Note You need to STOP making this so personal. Have we reached the end of your ability to have a civil conversation? Do you need a vacation?

The flavor eigenstates are not mass eigenstates, correct. This is an example of a mixing angle between the two, like happens with quarks (and I only recall this because that’s the Cabbibo angle, and I gave a lab tour to Cabbibo, not knowing who he was, because it’s not my area of physics. Only found out later from some jealous colleagues, who were more familiar with that area of physics)

@Saber, can you think of any other physical effect that could affect the process you've described? (Even if it is purely theoretical and does not occur in practice.)

TLDR. This stuff is beyond you. Flick the switch on your tin foil hat from transmit to receive. You might learn something.

hold on a minute, INow ... You previously agreed with others, and yourself stated, that gender identity is a learned trait at a very early age, and probably picked up from parents and siblings who may influence you at a very early age. Yet now you clain that the child has innate gender identity and, what is abusive, is if the parents don't accept the child as they 'are'. How exactly 'are' they without an environmental influence to their gender identity ? Pick a side, and have some logical consistency in your arguments. I realize you're passionate about the subject, but don't let that passion cloud your thinking.

As usual, I refer to the question on the title when I can't follow the logic that comes below. Can a material object cross the horizon of the BH? If the Schwarzschild radius of the BH is much bigger than the size of the material object (2 cases, I'm assuming free fall): From the outside to the inside of the horizon: Yes, and if the BH is big enough, the material object would be none the wiser that it's crossing a horizon. From the inside to the outside of the horizon: No, and due to its being in free fall it would be none the wiser that a huge part of space-time is forbidden to them But, If the Schwarzchild radius of the BH is comparable to the size of the falling object: The material object would be squeezed to nuclear spaguetti, according to standard knowledge.

So parents who have a child of a specific biological sex, and then re-enforce the opposing gender identity on that child, should be held criminally responsible for any emotional hardships ( up to including suicide ) suffered by that child throughout its life ? Or should we just give them hormone blockers and sex reassignment surgery, and ignore the root cause ?

Yes, and the point that many seem to be missing is that we take the myriad benefits of globalization for granted. None of us have any first hand experience living in a non-globalized system. As you point out, it's the interconnectedness of globalization, the ease with which goods flow between nations over long distances that affords us everything from sophisticated technology to food security to rising income levels and access to higher standards of living. Regarding food security, it's scary to understand just how fragile many countries are in the world when it comes to basic nutrition and sustenance. Vast swaths of Africa and middle east are net importers of food. The slightest disruption to global supply chains or shortages in commodities like wheat or rice cause widespread famine in these regions. Food insecurity was one of the trigger points of the Arab Spring uprising back in 2010. Turns out when people can't eat, they get pretty angry. This report from UNICEF has some good data on the current state of food security: https://www.unicef.org/media/72676/file/SOFI-2020-full-report.pdf What will happen to these countries when they get hit with the 1-2 knock out punch of climate change (which already exacerbates food security) and supply chain disruptions due to collapsing populations? Unless countries that are net importers of food rapidly, rapidly undergo revolutions in sustainable food production, they're toast. As a side note, most of the world's phosphorous for use in fertilizer comes from Russia and Ukraine, the flow of which has been severely disrupted due to the war. We've mentioned here how technology will come to the rescue in the form of robots, renewable energy, etc. We should acknowledge that advanced technology is massively energy intensive to produce, and can only be done with relative ease in a globalized system. If we want a global "green transition", this will require a globalized system to facilitate. Zeihan points out here how much energy it takes to create a product such as a lithium battery, or solar panel, or electric vehicle. Most of the world's steel for example comes from China and Russia, the two countries which are disintegrating fastest in terms of demography. Finally there is the argument that once the global system breaks in several key places it will be increasingly difficult to fight the avalanche of entropy that will follow. When critical infrastructure goes offline and there's nobody there to fix it, it's gone for good. Without an ability to produce advanced technology to save the day, the lights go out and stay out. Without an ability to make enough food to feed everyone, people begin to starve and then fight for what's left. Anarchy ensues. Then we're back to the stone age rather quickly indeed. But that's the pessimistic view. I'm sure we'll adapt, somehow. Hopefully... His latest book is worthwhile even if just to understand how technology has lifted humanity out of pure misery and suffering, and just how excrutiatingly long that process took. Most human decisions have been driven by pure practicality - how to move something in a way that doesn't use up too much energy (enter deep water navigation), how to stop the neighboring tribe from coming and killing everyone, how to get enough to eat, etc. For practically all of human history, more people meant a better life. More hands on the farm, more soldiers in your army, more workers in your factory, more consumers for your products. Now we're diverging from that trend in unprecedented fashion with no real understanding of what will come next.

There are three types of bias: 1, The bias we want to showcase to society, the bias we're proud of. 2, The bias we want to hide from society, the bias we're ashamed of. 3, The bias we want to ignore, the bias we hide from ourselves. How can you be sure? If you've never faced "the grim reaper" with both lives in the balance and he's asking you to choose. I'm not saying you wouldn't choose your only child; but what if you've got a daughter too? As deep as our honesty will allow.

It does depend I think on how 'closed' the test tube is. A reaction involves for instance some change of chemical bonding energy resulting in creation or absorption of heat. If there is no heat loss or gain through the test tube walls, there is no mass change as the total energy inside the test tube is unchanged.

..dunno what could be humorous about this subject.. Do you have any idea how little difference we are talking about? If one proton has a mass/energy-equivalent of nearly 1 GeV/c^2 (~938.272 MeV/c^2), then the energy to fully ionize it is 13.6 eV (i.e. makes plasma from a Hydrogen gas like on the Sun). That is, it is ~ 69 million times less. Chemical reactions release much lower energies per atom/molecule.. If the reaction releases 1 eV of energy, and the mass of the molecule is 20-50 GeV, this is 20-50 billion times less.. Mass "loss" is 1 eV/c^2..

I think you mean scales in both statements, i.e., "I thought to discuss a list of experiments that can deceive scales. We are talking about both conventional and ultra-precise scales. " But I am not sure what is a meaning of "deceive scales." Maybe you can give an example of what you are talking about.

I thought 150 and 200 year old examples were a bit out of date to be relevant to the conversation. Back in those days the UK still had 'Rotten Boroughs' and I wouldn't be quoting them on here.

What exists of your any?

She's now a delightful adult. I hope she doesn't meet you either. Contact with the spineless and dishonest rarely proves positive.