ITT: post ways the human body is fucking awesome
>be in dangerous situation
>body floods itself with steroids so it can run faster, jump higher, and fight harder
>no teeth or claws to hunt with
>intelligence and endurance to track and chase whatever you're hunting until it keels over and dies from exhaustion
>>7775330
What is the point of this thread?
The human body is trash the only redeemable feature is the brain and it doesn't even work properly for 99% of people
How much Technical (Software/IT) knowledge does a 1st year anyone of the above corporate roles (Software Sales Engineer / Solutions Architect / Technical Account Executive) actually need to know?
I'm great at selling B2B, however I am trying to gauge how many months I am going to need to study C# at 10 hours a week in between my current job in order to achieve at anyone of the above three roles within a company.
Thanks for the advice.
>>7775228
>>>/g/ayfags are that way
Want to know if there is a better way to go about this problem.
Something nags at me that expanding the squares after squaring both sides is unnecessarily tedious.
>>7775203
if you write y= (1+i)z = sqrt(2)*exp(i*pi/4)*z,
then y describes the circle of center 2 and of radius 4
which means z describes the circle of center 2 and of radius 2sqrt(2)
>>7775217
also maybe I'm just saying shit so be careful.
>>7775203
You definitely want to isolate the z so maybe do (1+i)z-2=(1+i)(z-(1-i))?
>They treat us like garbage!
https://youtu.be/D01E4fpB-oA
> 500th thread
viral marketing is a bannable offense on 4chan
Why is desalinization such an expensive and underutilized process? It seems relatively simple, especially in wealthy, modern countries.
>>7775107
It takes a fuckton of energy to boil water.
It really isn't very expensive, just an effect of capitalism and supply and demand
>literally shitting and pissing in drinking water then flushing it down into the sewerage
There is no need for desalination.
What kind of job you can have after studying physic engineer ?
I too would be interested in knowing it. What can you do after majoring in engineering physics for your undergrad?
McDonalds, probably management.
In what ways is making math like making music?
Both lend themselves excellently to being a pretentious 2deep4u shitlord or a pretty cool guy.
not at all
>>7774991
100% the same thing. One time I read a linear algebra book and one of the pages was just pure sheet music. I then had to take an exam where I had to prove a statement using music.
Why the big bang happened? Why does life exist? It stranges me out to think about, that I'm able to think, see, hear, interact, etc. Why?
>>7774821
if you're looking to find out how, it won't satiate your discomfort.
If you're looking to find a purpose for it's development, not only will you never find it but you're in the wrong board...
>>7774821
There is no why in science only how. If u want answers to bad there are none.
Which branch of science is easiest?
>and why is it biology?
>because memorization
>>7774654
Is that a real quote?
Personally, I find stuff that needs plenty of memorization more difficult than mathematics. I get bored as fuck having to memorise loads of stuff.
epic bro xD biology not a hard science still 2010 guys forcing this meme for six fucking years now
Biology is a pretty broad field. There's cellular bio, microbiology, biotechnology, biochemistry, genetics, zoology, you can't really make generalizations about it
Anybody else wired up by the latest additive manufactured Nasa engine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGWPR0mcCLs
>>7774322
Also, Nasa has been doing some 3d printing in space but today it's only plastic extrusion.
How about metals? We are pretty advanced on this tech on earth (like this breadboard engine) but on the ISS it doesn't seem to be in the pipe on shorterm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGWPR0mcCLs
what are the complications that would make it hard to do in space?
I suppose the layering of metal wouldn't work in microgravity?
>>7774326
a schematic to understand the engineering of a metal part with metal sintering
>>7774351
So for practical reasons, the powder layer would probably be unpractical, it would fly on all directions. But that can be compensated if the aparatus rotates on itself at a high enough speed to create some kind of microgravity that would maintain the powder in place through centrifuge force.
Now the finishing of the part might prove trickier, see the vid.
If i turn the grayscale on my I phone on, will that black the blue light? Im trying to not inhibit melatonin production at night.
>>7773819
block, my apologies
Aren't there apps that removes the blue light? Like f.lux? I don't think grayscale would do much of a difference actually.
ITT:
Post what you think is the definitive text on a field of your choice (textbook, paper, whatever)
Rules: if you disagree with someone's pick for their field, offer an alternative.
Starting with Introductory E&M
Both volumes.
The Bible of cell biology.
For a first pass at cosmology
Dear /sci/,
You are the smartest people I have access to at the moment and I've always been wondering about this and hope you'll have a satisfying answer:
How does a Supercontinent effect the biodiversity of the organisms living upon it? (Both plants and animals)
I'm going to assume there'd be LESS with the exception being small isolated islands or maybe even peninsulas, but maybe you guys know something I don't?
Further more: What would the biodiversity in the OCEAN be like? Would there be less or more? I can't even begin to guess since I'm not 100% sure what the ocean is all about- least of all a SUPER ocean.
Any answers or ideas would be appreciated, thank you /Sci/ence.
>>7772907
Probably the most fundamental important idea that should be taught to biology students today is that biodiversity is overrated.
>How does a Supercontinent effect the biodiversity of the organisms living upon it?
Affect. Not effect. Honestly, it doesn't really matter. It could increase biodiversity, and it could lower biodiversity. Do you mean locally, or for the planet? Local biodiversity could drop in a location, but the total diversity of life on Earth could increase.
But ultimately it doesn't matter. Life doesn't care about biodiversity. You have to understand that originally the biodiversity of life, assuming a common ancestor, was 1. One. There was no biodiversity. So, the idea that biodiversity is important in some abstract sense is a non sequitur. You can get biodiversity from zero biodiversity, n=1.
>(Both plants and animals) You're missing 3 kingdoms here. Life involves more than just plants and animals.
>What would the biodiversity in the OCEAN be like?
You can make hypotheses, like coastline in relation to latitude, and say that longer coastlines nearer to the equator = more biodiversity, but again, who cares? Your professor might care, but nature doesn't give a shit. The real question you should ask is, "What's wrong with less biodiversity?"
Biodiversity and conservation at this moment are in a very sad place.
>>7773003
Ignore this retard.
>>7772907
A good place to start would be to start looking at how continents moving around affected biodiversity.
Supposedly South America was full of marsupials and large animals until it collided with North America, at which point all of the marsupials were wiped out along with lots of other animals in general.
>How does a Supercontinent effect the biodiversity of the organisms living upon it?
Biodiversity will drop.
>What would the biodiversity in the OCEAN be like?
Same with the supercontinent.
Answer this
You have the simpliest circuit in the world:
A lightbulb and a switch.
You turn it on for an hour, then you switch it on and off for an hour.
Which takes more energy and why?
I was arguing about this with my friends for like 3 hours. My logic is that if you switch it on and off regularly it takes half of the energy needed to be lit for an hour. They said that a single click to light it needs more energy. It's an analogy to car engine. You need some fuel to turn it on but it takes less fuel when it's on.
Which is right and why?
Depends:
If the circuit is using direct current, you're correct.
If alternating current is used, They are correct that it takes more energy, but for the wrong reason.
It has to do with just how many Joules/coulomb you can squeeze out of a modern-day battery source.
Hope that helps.
>>7771652
Btw most cars today are extremely efficient at start up. If you are stuck in traffic with low gas it is usually better to turn the car off at stops.
You are right and they are wrong. They are probably confused because they heard that will wear out the bulb faster (which is true), but it won't use more energy.
You can see that's the case even without a current meter. If switching it on used more energy, that energy would still have to go somewhere, ie light or heat. It doesn't create a bright flash of light, so that leaves heat. Does the bulb heat up instantly in a flash, burning your hand if you are touching the bulb when it turns on? No, it starts out cool and takes several seconds to warm up.
facebook makes me angry
ITT: science and reason are bad mkay
That's correct tho
I sincerely hope you're not implying that atheism is either scientific or reasonable.
>>7789131
I don't see anything incorrect in that image
![flat,800x800,070,f.u8[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/jDfRALQ.jpg "flat,800x800,070,f.u8[1]")
