With fees capped at 14% and interest capped at 35% APR, a doubling could still be legal if they have 2 years to repay, especially with frequent compounding.
Not that children have the patience to wait 2 years for a return on their investment, though.
Yup. Electrical engineering does something similar. The addition and subtraction of voltages, currents, resistance, capacitance, and inductance in AC circuits is basically unworkable without the shortcut of converting the sinusoidal waves into imaginary phase angles and doing math on them, and then converting them back to sinusoidal waves as necessary.
Cookie is already a slang term for pussy, you can skip that step.
Yeah, cookie monster is blue, but this particular shot has so much dark shadow in that textured fur that it’s nearly black in most places.
Ok there Ongo Baglogian
Have you ever had to clean public restrooms? Nothing microscopic about the drops of splashback.
Gotta paint some faces on there, with puckered lips.
A course I took in undergrad on the history and philosophy of science really stayed with me, and is a really helpful way of understanding how science actually works.
Karl Popper wrote the revolutionary work The Logic of Scientific Discovery, which proposed that what separated science from pseudoscience as whether the discipline actually makes predictions that can be proven wrong, and whether it changes its own rules when it observes exceptions to those rules.
Well, Thomas Kuhn came along and wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which argued that not all scientific theories were equally falsifiable. Kuhn argued that science actually tolerated a lot of anomalous observations without actually rejecting the discipline’s own paradigms or models. In Kuhn’s view, scientists performed “normal science” by accumulating knowledge under an established paradigm, including tolerating observed anomalies, until someone would have to come along and use the accumulated anomalies to actually propose something revolutionary that breaks a lot of previous models, and throws away a lot of the work that came before, in a scientific revolution. Under Kuhn’s description, science is quite resistant to criticism or falsifiability under the “normal science” periods, even if it accepts that revolutions are occasionally necessary.
The prominent example was that Mercury’s orbit didn’t quite fit Newton’s theory of gravity, and astronomers and physicists kept trying to rework the formula on the edges without actually challenging the core paradigm. For decades, astronomers simply shrugged their shoulders and said that they knew that the motion of Mercury tended to drift from the predictive model, but they didn’t have anything better to turn to, if they were to reject Newtonian gravity. It wasn’t until Einstein’s general relativity that scientists did have something better, and learning that Einstein’s theory works even when near a large gravity well was revolutionary.
Others include the phlogiston theory of combustion that persisted for a bit even after it was measured that combustion of metallic elements increased the mass of the resulting burned stuff, as if phlogiston had negative mass.
Imre Lakatos tried to bridge the ideas of Popper and Kuhn, by observing that each discipline had their own “Research Programs” that weren’t necessarily compatible with others in their own field. Quantum physics was aware of cosmology/relativity, and it didn’t much matter that these two sets of theories and research methods had different scopes, and contradicted each other at times. But each Research Program had its own “hard core” that was not subject to questioning or challenge, while most scientists did the work in the “protective belt” around that core. And even when a particular Research Program gets battered by a series of contradictory observations, it’s perfectly rational for scientists in that field to rally in defense of that hard core to see if it can be revived, at least for a time until that defense becomes untenable. In a sense, Lakatos described the fields where Kuhn’s “normal science” and “revolutionary science” actually happened, and how Popper’s falsifiability criterion fit into each space.
Paul Feyerabend also added a lot of color to these theories, too. He described the tenacity of ideas as being driven by more than simple falsifiability, but also of just how attractive of an idea it was. In his descriptions, ideas basically fought for popularity on many different metrics, and the sterile ideas of falsifiability didn’t actually account for how ideas compete in the marketplace, even among allegedly rational scientists.
So yeah, this comic is basically Karl Popper’s views. The world as a whole, though, has definitely moved on from that definition trying to demarcate between science and pseudoscience.
Gravity ain’t shit. It’s not the falling that kills you, it’s the impact at the bottom. Which are electromagnetic forces.
You’re paying way too much for antimatter, man. Who’s your antimatter guy?
Yup. If, for example, you’re designing a deep space mission, where every gram counts, there’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s cost effective (and appropriate risk) to send nuclear reactors and fuel aboard those spacecraft.
Or using modern engineering, whether an aircraft carrier should be powered by nuclear fission or internal combustion of hydrocarbons.
I think in Lilo and Stitch the aliens mention in passing that they use Earth as a wildlife preserve for mosquitoes.
Use context clues. It’s about sounds, so it’s obviously sax.
The anus may have evolved from a hole originally used to release sperm
But whose sperm are we talking about here?
From this summary, The American Health Association still has a very modest recommendation to avoid excessive dietary cholesterol but no longer recommends a daily limit, and notes that foods high in cholesterol tend to be high in saturated fat, which does still show a link to serum cholesterol.
In other words, foods that are high in cholesterol but low in saturated fat (like shellfish, and to some degree eggs) are still fine.
I’d trust the American Heart Association over a video by a doctor who advocates for veganism through his books and media appearances. He seems to me to be more of an advocate (and isn’t very open about the fact that nutritionfacts.org is his own marketing website for promoting his specific products). And his books rely partially on data now known to be faulty, about “blue zones” where lots of people live past 100 (turns out each are hotspots for pension fraud so it’s hard to actually know how old people actually live in those places).
Not a reliable source, if this claim can even be found in his works.
While we humans eat a lot, something like 50% of our calories are going to our brains.
I don’t think that’s right.
This article says that about 20% of an adult human male’s resting energy expenditure goes towards supporting the brain’s metabolism. Obviously for more active people, the higher denominator of total energy expenditure will mean an even lower percentage of energy being used for the human brain.
Flying is energetically expensive to start doing, but pays off in efficiency once an animal moves a far enough distance. How many calories does a goose need to consume to fly 4000 km, and how does that compare to terrestrial species like deer or wolves?
Birds have to use almost all of their available calories on flying.
But flying is quite energy efficient as a method of getting from point A to point B. That’s why flying insects and birds have had such evolutionary success with that strategy.
And then they can enhance that business by turning around getting pedophiles to subscribe and pay for in game credits so that they can interact with a bunch of undersupervised children.