Leaderboard

Talk sense.

No, you are right, the volume is generally adjusted for the expected application and provided in a range that is generally convenient to apply. However, some drugs might have a narrower safe range than others. So the impact of e.g. not having enough time between treatments or accidental misdosing can have different effects. That being said, I am not sure where fentanyl sits in terms of relative safety. I think I have read somewhere that switch of medication has to be done more carefully as the effects can be initially stronger than anticipated (at equivalent dosages).

It never used to be a problem for me when younger. At brunch buffets I'd feast on practically nothing but the breads and cheeses and my favourite restaurant meal was linguini Alferdo. I did figure out a moderately skinny version that's not bad. Now I have to be careful of the quantity and kind: okay to put three slices of processed on the macaroni, but only two fingers of the real cheddar; 1% milk for cereal is fine. Otherwise, I get terrible heartburn. In my experience the taste is unaffected by what happens in the stomach. More's the pity - I still like the taste! The pain comes an hour or two later. But I don't think it's about fat content, either: I get the same reaction to some vegetables: cabbage is dangerous; onion, pepper and tomato are impossible.

GRate answer!

Singularity is a consequence of GR. Gravitational wave is a consequence of GR. In GR, singularity is NOT a gravitational wave. If you want to consider a singularity as a gravitational wave, then either the singularity or the gravitational wave (or both) should be NOT what they are in GR, but something else. What are they?

General comment: people should appreciate the friction of different viewpoints and not get upset when someone smites at their long-held convictions. This is an adversarial forum, just by the nature of its core purpose: promoting and discussing science. Does one learn anything meaningful and novel in echo chambers? Are we parrots?

OK, this looks like the Fourier series I've mentioned. Any wave can be decomposed into a sum of weighted sinusoidal waves. Each component wave behaves independently, and the resulting wave behaves as their sum. The component waves do not affect each other.

Actually, light sensing arose way before skin was developed. The earliest organisms with light sensing capabilities and phototaxis were bacteria.

It did not need to. The whole point of the theory is to explain how adaptations can arise, purely through more successful reproduction of creatures with a trait that happens to be an advantage. This is basic. You can read about it anywhere. The evolution of the eye can be traced to creatures with light-sensitive patches on their skin. Those that had them could move towards or away from the light and this would have enabled them to find more food or escape more predators, so they reproduced more and handed on the advantage to their offspring. Etc. This is how it works, not by an organism “knowing” anything.

So before folks focus too much on the "white" in whiteboard thingy (ragebait). I had a quick break and glimpsed at the paper under discussion. The paper is a bit convoluted and is more in social science lingo, which certainly does not endear it to natural scientists. As such I really only skimmed it. That being said, the whiteboard is not in there, because of the word white, it could have been any board, or a flip chart or similar. What the authors claimed is that in their observatory session certain persons were using the board as a dominance tool, to focus attention on themselves as opposed to a collaborative tool with equal access for everyone involved. They reframed it in a hierarchical system prevalent in white patriarchic societies. There is a bit of a stretch (IMO) that is not uncommon in social science papers in establishing these contexts, but it definitely reads different than saying whiteboards are racist. If someone said that they either have not read the paper or are stretching context in an arguably similar or worse way as they are accusing the authors of.

I want to pick a name to describe what you say as a short one of 'phenomenon determinism'. It is not enough to just be compatible with observational evidence because 'observational evidence' is just phenomenon , which may not reflect the truth of reality. For instance, If half human beings are colour blindness and the other half are not, then different half human beings would alert they perceive the correct phenomenon. This is the problem of 'phenomenon determinism'. It cannot become the basis to serve as the standard of judgement.

You're the first one with brains in the thread.

Misunderstanding the whiteboards paper as badly as many'v here does harm to the subject itself (a new freshman in community college could interpret the arguments better than this; you'll learn simple content analysis in introductory courses). That many would post all of these Clowneries rather than read the paper first shows you are likely a dropout who doesn't know how to tell between reality and fantasy, how to verify a belief, how to premise conditions for observations that should support and defy the belief, how to recognize observations that are irrelevant to the belief. Why do so many hate the scientific method? This kind reflects the American tolerated trash who are why America is with the last in first-world STEM aptitude and industry. And who did this to them? Their parents? Their halfwitted teachers (who committed the fraud of letting them pass)? I shudder!