Thermodynamics doesn't apply to the body in any meaningful way. It sounds like a 19th century idea of how the body might work that people repeat with no understanding.
And, you not only need to get fuel from the food, but also the materials to build the engines, and for making spare parts and consumables. And everything that actually uses the energy. There will be no energy spent on lighting if you can't get the indium needed for making LED lights, and the body only knows how to make LED lights.
Ugh. I worked for a guy like this, he was a full-on cybersecurity paranoiac. You need to be a special type of person with near-infinite patience of stupidity just to be able to work under them.
It's a literal streetlight. It has the bigger E40 screw, not the standard E27 screw. It has an awful spectrum, it's basically blue + yellow, with a massive gap inbetween.
Oh I see. I can explain my confusion: They come in two varieties, one is E40 an the other is bayonet (B22). Here in NZ interior home light sockets are sometimes E27 and sometimes B22. I have a couple of the bayonet Philips 40W bulbs here and they do fit a normal socket size, so I figured the screw version would be the normal size as well. But I see you're right that it's a larger size, and I know you guys don't use bayonet. Sorry!
There's serious issues with heritability research in general, it's observability stuff -- not experimentation, so imv, its at best proto-science, and in many cases plainly pseudoscience. "Heritability" itself has little to do with whether something is inherited, and speaks only to correlation with genes. Since we have a vast amount of genes which are shared for all sorts of reasons (ie., mating is based on shared culture, wealth, geography, etc.) -- the metric is mostly useless.
Accents are highly heritable, since they always correlated with location which is always correlated with genes.
Even if you do these twin studies, you have to assume a model of how genes and the environment interact, and all such models are obviously false.
Thus even if you grant that heritability measures on high quality twin studies are 'sign correct', in the sense that they show P(genetic effect) > P(no genetic effect) -- any magnitude of this effect, or any theory of is, is more or less pseudoscience (unless there are experimental studies showing gene-trait mechanism).
For example, it is "obvious" that P(genetic effect) > P(none) for intelligence, since genes control the structure of the brain and body. But there is no evidence (I'm aware of...) that beyond provision of a functioning brain, our genetics play any role in intelligence stratification. ie., all correlation with task performance and IQ can be explained by correlations in the metal retardation / mental deficiency range.
This doesn't mean intelligence is very malleable beyond a certain age. My own views is that genes are basically providing functioning hardware to the womb, and after that point its early development (both pre-birth and probs up to at most 3yo) which locks in a lot of the observed intelligence stratification. This is a very different story than popularisers of IQ research communicate though, but be aware, none are very good scientists and most of this research is methodologically unfit
Geneticist would say it's intended design of twin studies. Your example doesn't show AIDS is a genetic defect, but that genetics may predispose/protect against it.
That is expected. The problem is that people are not getting healthier, or more intelligent, quite the opposite.
Obviously there is an absolutely massive problem that you're missing as you're congratulating yourself on "succeeding" with a massive effort with no clear result.
There is no reason to believe that a lack of nitrogen was a problem in particular. It seems that most effort was spent on getting fertilizers with phosphorus and other minerals, nitrogen was secondary, as many plants can obtain it from the air. If anything, it allows our modern, heavily cereal skewed diet. Poor nutrition rarely meant an absolute lack of food, most of the time it only meant insufficuent quality, and the green revolution was a massive step backward in that regard
That is literally true, but for anyone who hasn't studied plant biology, I think that "some plants have evolved specific structures to host obligate symbiotic bacteria that obtain nitrogen from the air and convert it into a form usable by the plant" is close enough to "many plants can obtain [nitrogen] from the air".
It seems to me (and maybe I'm wrong), but it seems to me that "a lack of IP" increasingly means "we have no leverage to get the licences that we need" in China, and "we have no idea how they used to do it" in the west.
China doesn't need licences. They can just violate western IP law and make lots of money. As every country without a need to placate the IP industry does.
You can't steal everything if you intend to export. That's why they bought Qimonda's IP portfolio, so they have valid licenses when they start to sell their products in the west and not get banned for IP theft, although I assume the US & allies will just ban them anyway for another dozen reasons out of protectionism.
My biggest worry is that the development of AI will stop once people can no longer easily tell when the AI is wrong. Following its advice may become mandatory in certain aspects of life. But it will be quite not good enough, and give catastrophic advice, but the failures will be blamed on people who don't follow it correctly.
I think it was because old TVs already had wide gamut, so sRGB meant a significant reduction. It never was "contrast" as such. Anything made today is vastly better than any CRT.
And, you not only need to get fuel from the food, but also the materials to build the engines, and for making spare parts and consumables. And everything that actually uses the energy. There will be no energy spent on lighting if you can't get the indium needed for making LED lights, and the body only knows how to make LED lights.
reply