TheVat

Seems to be a problem if all pirates happen to think one of the sui generis items is by far the most valuable part of the treasure. Let's call it the Holy Grail. They obtained it by bravely confronting the Gorge of Eternal Peril, the deadly Rabbit of Caerbannog, the Knights Who Say "Ni!", etc. The Holy Grail cannot be divided up, therefore four pirates are dissatisfied. Which leads me to speculative answer number three (actually I've lost track of the number, perhaps it is four)

Well that is a kind of treasure where you have heterogeneous collection of objects. If, as you indicate... ...then many puzzle solvers assume it is items that are to be traded as money, like gold coins. Hence, pirates. My solution is workable when the treasure is fairly homogeneous and subjective estimates are simply about amount. These are experienced pirates who know the current exchange rate for doubloons. Estimates, in my system, will tend to converge on accurate monetary appraisals. With heterogeneous or sui generis items, it would seem highly improbable that any accord could be reached, and game theory goes out the window. Time to call Sotheby's. I know I am missing something (but that's the fun, yes?)

It got a laugh from me, as one more of those gosh isn't that really doing it the hard way sorts of fixes. (all the thermodynamic, ecological, and basic physics problems aside) One starts to marvel at how averse some folks are to clean energy technology. The Right-Wing media seem to have decided that green innovation and tax incentives is some kind of Satanic conspiracy that may include the use of babies and pets as fuel.

Think I see it.

Seems like none of the solutions really satisfy the situation as stated. To make an estimate requires getting some basic metric of the loot, like total mass or number of doubloons or whatever. Seems like some prior metric of value must be agreed upon, for estimates to be generally satisfactory and to have peace. Without the objectivity of math, how would the pirates ever avoid endless argument?

Is a double pan scale involved?

No. Ionization is common. Neutron capture, happening twice to a C12 nucleus, is a low probability event. Quite rare.

Seems like there might be other knock-on effects from detonating nukes in the atmosphere. Both in atmospheric chemistry and in global diplomacy. To say nothing of radionuclides getting into soil and water and then into ecosystems. While neutron bombs are cleaner than conventional thermonuclear weapons, they are not really clean.

JK

America: racism = Germany: Nazism IOW, there's that thin line between free expression (we don't need no thought control ) and possible glorification of what was atrocious. It's a Mel Brooks quote that springs to mind, Tragedy plus time, equals comedy. In another few decades, it will hoffentlich be easier for Germans to laugh at that era. Perhaps Springtime for Hitler will become a hit!

I switch my display to the amber setting, evenings. Seems to do what it's supposed to - I have less eyestrain and go to sleep more easily. (on those evenings I'm on a device; often opt for paper books instead, late in the evening) It's the kids I worry about a little. Wife and I have two thousand volumes, roughly. Ours kids each own around a dozen, and everything thing else they keep digitally. On some level, I envy them, and might consider joining them. Spouse, however, has a serious fetish for dead tree fibers and ink (and, to be fair, has books that are not digitally available and would cost a fortune to have all scanned). And reading ink is so much easier on the eyes. As someone pointed out in an article I read (in a paper magazine) long ago, print books have a slight three-dimensionality to the reading surface, combined with slight shifts of illumination, that is good for the eyes.

M2.7182 2. Had Σ with (300,000km/s)off(1.61803).

Perhaps google something like correlation between suicide rate and month. I have heard there's a peak in late spring and early summer.

From Politico today: The Supreme Court on Thursday significantly shrank the reach of federal clean water protections, dealing a major blow to President Joe Biden’s efforts to restore protections to millions of acres of wetlands and delivering a victory to multiple powerful industries. The ruling from the court’s conservative majority vastly narrowing the federal government’s authority over marshes and bogs is a win for industries such as homebuilding and oil and gas, which must seek Clean Water Act permits to damage federally protected wetlands. Those industries have fought for decades to limit the law’s reach. The ruling comes less than a year after the high court issued a contentious ruling restricting EPA’s ability to regulate climate warming gases, and liberal Justice Elena Kagan decried Thursday that the court has appointed “itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.” The 5-4 ruling in Sackett v. EPA creates a far narrower test than what has been used for more than half a century to determine which bogs and marshes fall under the scope of the 1972 law. Under the majority’s definition, only those wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to larger streams, lakes and rivers would get federal protections. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, wrote in the majority opinion that only those wetlands that are “indistinguishable” from those larger waters should be covered. “Wetlands that are separate from traditional navigable waters cannot be considered part of those waters, even if they are located nearby,” Alito wrote. The court’s liberals, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, disagreed with that test, arguing that it cuts out a broad swath of wetlands that are important to Clean Water Act’s goal of protecting the nation’s waters... https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/supreme-court-dramatically-shrinks-clean-water-acts-reach-00098781 In case the thread title was unclear, here's a bit about WOTUS... https://www.epa.gov/wotus/current-implementation-waters-united-states

Most extreme ideologies require maintenance of a narrative that distorts some aspects of reality and ignores others. Often to negate some valid observation their perceived opponents may have. Or to take credit for economic trends that were in fact driven by forces outside of partisan lever-pulling. Or to exaggerate a social problem in order to make it seem like only their draconian fix will work. Meanwhile, centrists quietly work to get something done. OTOH, miners not working themselves to death in dangerous conditions for long hours while getting poverty wages used to be considered a radical and extreme idea that required brutal represssion. Thanks to that "extremist" movement, we have sane labor laws now and unions that protect workers. So sometimes what the PTB frame as extreme is actually rational and necessary social policy. (Parmesan rules. The aging process, done properly, breaks down the lactose well enough that it's been about the only cheese I can indulge in for the past decade. )

I think you have to start first, and then:

People take LSD and they see God. If God takes LSD, does he see people?

Flunitrazepam.

I think the Surgeon-General is right to be concerned about social media and developing young brains. The most dangerous toy of all. This (paywall-free screenshot) summarizes the statement he released today: https://archive.is/2023.05.23-224841/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/05/23/social-media-surgeon-general-youth-health-risk/ Once again I am the forum's premiere Necroposter. Tremble before my black tendrils of necrotic magic!

As someone familiar with farming methods I would note that some current trends like no-till, controlled burns, "green manure," regionally-adapted strains, heritage varieties, drip irrigation, etc, all hearken back to ancient indigenous peoples and their cropping methods. European style farming has often been a disaster in drier regions (I have a parent who lived much of childhood through such a disaster), and will not sustain those 8-plus billion without incorporating some "primitive" indigenous methods.