Yup, it’s always been funny to me. Got a sandwich style ITX case, I like being able to see my GPU

That’s fine. 4 hours isn’t enough to really get into the meat of the game yet. If you feel like you’re kinda stumbling around a bit without quite knowing what the goal of the game is, that’s normal. The game is specifically designed to not give you any objectives, and a big part of making the game enjoyable is to not try to judge the game by regular game design conventions. There are no win conditions, no lose conditions, no objectives, and the game becomes much more enjoyable if you just play the game in the way that you think makes the most sense. You’ll just need to have a bit of faith that there is actually an end, you just never get told how to get to the end.

If you’re struggling with not crashing, then that’s a different issue altogether, and honestly my advice is to just use autopilot. Make sure to disable autopilot if you start to see that autopilot is going to crash you into the sun.

Outer Wilds. Any explanation that I give would be massive spoilers, but it captures a genre, aesthetic, and theme that, in my experience, has been virtually unused by any other game before and still remains extremely underutilized

What’s New Pussycat on repeat, with an It’s Not Unusual thrown in sporadically

Reference: https://youtu.be/Tv1l1eUhN-E

Even just opening the link can leak info - I would avoid doing so entirely unless your device is sandboxed

Contramuffin
AP Biology
Mrs. Setters
1 December 2024

          How cells respond to different doses of drugs 

Purpose: The purpose of this experiment is to see whether cells respond differently when exposed to different doses of the same drug. 

Hypothesis: The drugs will work the best at the highest dosage, but it won't work at the lowest dosage. 

Alternate hypothesis: All of the dosages work equally well. 

Materials:
* Cells
* 48-well plate
* Cell media 
* Recording device 
* Micropipettes
* Micropipette tips (a lot) 
* Serological pipers (a lot) 
* Serological piper pump
* Cell culture hood
* Drug (5 mg) 
* DMSO (5 mL) 
* PBS (5 ml) 
* Stimulus (500 uL) 
* PCR strip (2)

Procedure:
1. Using the cell culture hood, put cells and cell media into a 48-well plate
2. Put the plate into a recording device and start recording
3. Dilute drugs to the correct concentrations with DMSO
4. Put the drugs and the stimulant and the PBS into PCR strips for easier usage later
5. Stop the recording and put drugs into the plate 
6. Wait 30 minutes
7. Put stimulant or PBS into the plate 
8. Resume recording
9. After several days, stop the recording

Results: The cells died :'(

Conclusions: Science is hard

Herbal medicines are fine for minor things, but I wouldn’t use that for serious issues. Dosage is a big part of a medicine’s effectiveness, and a lot of the time, natural products have compounds that are too low in concentration to be reasonably effective. You’d need to extract and purify the compound, and at that point you’re right back to conventional medicine.

And that’s assuming that the herbs do contain the compound that you’re looking for, because unfortunately, people lie on the internet and I generally would not trust what random internet people say about what’s in herbal medicines

OK, so this is an interesting question. To start, I’m a circadian researcher, specifically focusing on how bacteria can influence our circadian clocks.

It is indeed correct that most animals utilize the sky (specifically, the ambient brightness) to determine the time. But the circadian clock is incredibly entrenched. It evolved ages ago, and so by extension, virtually every single animal inherited the same circadian clock (with some modifications). Animals as distinct as fruit flies, fish, and humans have similar circadian clocks. And the circadian clock is unbelievably important, more than people give it credit for. Night and day are incredibly different environments, and every single animal needs to be able to predict and accommodate for the cold that comes at night and the UV radiation that comes during the day. And there’s a plethora of other, subtle changes to the environment that we don’t fully understand yet. For instance (and probably a bit unsurprising in hindsight), the population of bacteria in the air changes at day versus at night. Soil bacteria, for some reason, act differently at day versus at night. Presumably plants (which are definitely circadian) are influencing the soil bacteria in some way through their roots, but it’s not entirely clear.

An interesting consequence of the importance of the circadian clock is that animals have evolved multiple, redundant ways of telling time. If you lock a person in a dark box for weeks to months (scientists have performed this experiment in the past), the circadian clock running within the person is still able to somewhat-accurately tell the time, and we can use experiments like this to tease apart how the circadian clock utilize different cues to figure out the right time. One of the more interesting cues (and the one that I research) is how our bodies use surrounding bacteria to tell the time. And it’s known that eating food affects the circadian clock. Food availability, of course, is pretty circadian, especially if you eat food that is circadian. If a mouse comes out at night, then there’s no point hunting for mice in the day. I’m not too knowledgeable about deep sea animals (I’m really more focused on mammals), but a quick literature search suggests that deep sea animals do have circadian clocks, inherited from the same ancient ancestors that we got ours from. The conclusions appear to be similar to what I’ve said above - namely, that even if there’s no sky, having a functional circadian clock is necessary simply because other things, such as food, are themselves circadian.

So my answer is, presumably, that deep sea animals can already accurately tell the time, presumably by keeping track of when they last ate

I genuinely don’t understand why people use it. It gives me massive motion sickness and so I figure out very quickly when games have it on by default

32 + 4 = 36

34 + 2 = 36

Am I missing something? Barring some extremely stupid math error, I don’t see how I’m incorrect

Everyone has different preferences, so it can be difficult to judge what you may like or dislike. Even in gaming, there are such disparate subcommunities that one subcommunity may not even know of the existence of another. I personally prefer slow paced, artistic, single player games and I can’t stand multi-player games, much less competitive ones.

So my answer is there’s likely something for you somewhere, but without more information, I wouldn’t know how you would begin finding that something

Most of the bras that my girlfriend gets fits on her first try, although she does tend to prefer sister sizes over her real size. If your girlfriend is having issues with bras fitting, it might be worthwhile to read up on how bra sizes are actually calculated and do a measurement yourself. Funny enough, most girls don’t seem to know how the bra size system works either and they just get their sizes through trial and error, which seems like what has happened here.

The letter by itself is fundamentally meaningless. A 32D is equivalent to a 34B! And most girls severely underestimate their actual size. What would colloquially be called a B or C is actually an E

I agree with you generally, but I strongly disagree that we today cannot understand the perspective of the time. We (Americans) just elected Imperial Supreme God Emperor Trump based on the same fascist ideas that drove people to Hitler back then

I practically don’t read for fun. Not that I dislike reading, but it’s generally rare to find books that interest me, and I simply don’t have time to look for interesting books. Last I found an interesting book, I breezed through it in a couple days.

Anyways, most of my reading happens through academia, reading scientific papers and such. There’s a lot of interesting scientific research going on that flies under the radar because it’s not clickbaity enough for popsci websites to pick up on it. I have a feed set up on Pubmed to send me emails every day on new papers from different topics. Every day or two I glance through them and it there’s something that catches my eye, I’ll read it more thoroughly.

I wouldn’t generally encourage people to read scientific papers, since they’re really quite dense and requires a lot of practice to get good at reading, but it’s an easy way to read something while being productive. And I’ve become increasingly convinced over time that the general population needs at least some experience with scientific literature, given how much of the science gets twisted in the game of Science Communication Telephone

That’s a misinterpretation of the poem. The point was that both paths were equally valid but no matter what he picked, he would always think that the other was better. It was a poem about “the grass is always greener on the other side”

Found someone nice. It was sheer chance, really. Met with a new neighbor and she had a crush on me. Was friends for a while. Years later decided to get into a relationship with her.

Patriotic duck

For me, everything is a belief unless it satisfies the following criteria:

1. It is generally accepted as true among experts
2. There is ample evidence that is both personally convincing and leaves no room for alternate interpretations (not the same as #1, since many fields have “commonly accepted knowledge” that is generally acknowledged as most likely true but has no evidence to back it up)
3. It is specific enough that it cannot be interpreted in a way that is misleading

I find that the one that trips up most people is #3, since some people speak in technically true but overly broad statements and the listener ends up filling in the gaps with their own biases. The listener leaves feeling like their biases have been confirmed by data, not realizing that they have been misled.

In the end, according to my criteria, very little can be categorized as true knowledge. But that’s fine. You can still make judgements from partial or biased data or personal beliefs. You just can’t be resolute about it and say that it’s true.

The Thing (1982) has basically consistently been my favorite horror movie

I mainly do work indoors, so the brightness does not really matter that much to me. But as far as I can tell, the brightness is pretty normal for laptops - I don’t think it’s any brighter or dimmer than other laptops I’ve used in the past. According to this website that I found, brightness is 25 to 486 nits. Google search seems to say that average maximum brightness for laptops is somewhere around 300-400 nits.

My understanding is that the screen is generally what eats up most of the battery on device, so if you plan to have brightness turned up, it might be difficult to find a laptop with a long battery life.