Watch Mel Robbins' "How to stop screwing yourself over" TED talk. Good lecture on realizing you are constantly in your comfort zone and understanding that you have to break that comfort zone when you can't find motivation to do something.
>>8136075 >at a cost wouldn't be so sure, neanderthals had larger craniums compared to H sapiens at the time. They lacked the socialization skills according to some studies so perhaps that interbreeding resulted in brains that had the neural organization of H sap with larger volume resulting in smarter people that went on to start civilization.
Pic related is the Cayley Table dihedral group of 8 elements (symmetries of a square). This doesn't look like any Cayley table I've ever seen (though I'm new to this sort of math).
It looks as though theyve dropped the header rows and columns, which makes sense as beginning the first rows and columns with the identity makes it clear what the elements are. But what are the red and white little boards above and to the left?
Also, why do we have numbers instead of the typical notation (I've seen r for rotation, s for flip about axis of symmetry, and all sorts of variants of the two, but never numbers)
In fact, there is a lot going on here I'm not familiar with. Can someone help me navigate what is being conveyed here?
>take Physics I at a community college >realize I am terrible at lab >Lab worth 30% of grade >Three test worth 40% of grade >pre-lecture/lab quizzes worth 10% of grade >homework worth 10% of grade >Final exam worth 10% of grade
I just started the class, but assuming I do completely terrible on the lab portion of Physics, can I still pass the Physics... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Just add up like .7 * .4 for your 70% on the tests, .8 * .1 assuming you get 80% on the quizzes, .9 * .1 assuming you get 90% on the homeworks, etc all the way down except for the labs, then subtract from .7 (or whatever overall percentage you want in the class) and divide by .3 and you have the percentage you need to get on your labs in order to get that grade.
>>8126948 Today I'll give you one stone. Tomorrow I'll give you two stones. The day after tomorrow I'll give you three stones. The day after the day after tomorrow I'll give you four stones. Assuming we are both immortal and can continue this forever, would you accept the deal?
Sometimes you just want something physical to represent your love for something. Pic related is some math jewelry you can buy (a Hilbert Cube). Anything similar, I'm looking for a necklace or something but any form of math and science is ok.
>>8129264 Here is an Icosahedron. Links for Hilbert Cube: http://www.shapeways.com/product/74HJ237ZG/hilbert-cube-pendant?optionId=8087941 Link for Icosahedron: http://www.shapeways.com/product/QEVTKFH8Z/icosahedron-platonic?optionId=55897467&li=marketplace
>>8139413 >being sued for discrimination, from a patient who literally did not have the biological parts that I specialize in. wow that is so ignorant and bigoted op, might want to check your privilege next time instead of resorting to these cis white male patriarchal facts and logic
Why do people in STEM have such myopic world views? I thought "because science" was just a thing in general society, but people in physics seem to just as fundamentally misunderstand empiricism and the goals and bounds of science.
Why do people believe that science is asocial and apolitical? Why do they believe that "science" is the only valid form of knowledge? It sends a shiver down my spine when these kids in my classes, who are obviously bright, are so neglectful of the world outside their cozy academic... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Our planet rotates around a star, our sun alongside the solar system just rotates around our galaxycore, galaxies seem to rotate around each other. Assuming there are actually several other Universes, do they rotate too?
Multiple rounds? Hah, oh my, no. LTR, buddy. We're lucky to fuck once a month. After one round, we're more concerned with figuring out where we left off in The Wire than in making a bigger mess of the sheets.
So in this particular game, a drop rate of a particular item is 1/384. There are 3 unique items with this drop rate.
I would assume this would mean the chances of receiving any drop is 3/384 or 1/128.
This is where it gets tricky. If I wanted to calculate the odds of something dropping I get confused as to what I would do. Say, I repeated this process 100 times, meaning that I've hit this chance of 1/128 100 times, would the probability of me getting this item be 111/128 (symbolizing 100 attempts)? Or is this a gambler's fallacy and my odds are still... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8137578 >I would assume this would mean the chances of receiving any drop is 3/384 or 1/128. Depends if the odds are independent - i.e. does one of the items dropping impact the odds of the other two items dropping from the same kill.
>Or is this a gambler's fallacy and my odds are still 1/128? Correct. If you want to calculate the aggregate chance over the 100 attempts that at least one drop happened, however, I believe you can take the inverse... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8137144 Evolution is not adaption. Evolution is a population-wide change in genes. This does not necessarily mean the population has adapted to anything. And it does not mean such changes are "necessary," whatever you think that means.
>>8136716 Well yes you don't need to read p.o.s. to know that but if you for some reason wanted the justification for experiments and observations you would have to. I learned that experiments need to differentiate between different hypotheses. If an experiment gives the same result no matter what hypothesis might be true then it is useless.
First of all, I'm fully aware of how autistic I sound.
Secondly, I'm really interested in becoming more intelligent, and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts/experiences. Here is what I've been doing so far: >self-learning calculus, although it isn't used in my degree. This is basically to do practice questions, which I feel is good exercise for the brain >reading lots of fiction and non-fiction. I try and vary the non-fiction as much as possible, reading into economics, machine learning,... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
For me, most of my progress has come from pushing myself, and straining/trying to deeply understand material. Without a concrete goal in mind it seems like a lot of your efforts would be wasted. What happens when you get to something that's much more difficult than your used to? Do you stop and give up when you stop making progress because you have no reason to push yourself?
>>8136320 >Learning styles >The genius factor >Right/left brain Good fucking riddance. Can't wait for 2025. Also, why every read this futurology shit? It's probably wrong--it's definitely wrong. Ten years from now, my peers who endorse all of this shit will be the ones in academia. They're gonna keep that fire alive.
>>8136320 >1. Traditional subjects >We’re living in an increasingly multi-disciplinary world, so why shouldn’t our majors reflect that? In the next ten years, we’ll start to see less Biology, Math, English and more Big Data, Creative Studies, and Decision Sciences.
>>8136320 >5. Tracking >In their book, 50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools, Berliner and Glass explain that tracking, or separating students according to academic ability, provides little to no benefit for low-achieving students and, at best, modest academic benefits for high-achieving students:
Question for an astrophysist or astronomer or anyone who might know. I'm reading Sagans Cosmos book and he mentions that there were several stars born in the cloud of interstellar gas and dust that formed our sun but that they have been separated. Was it the angular momentum that allowed them to leave because they were at a far enough distance from our sun that the sound gravity was negligible . Or was this cloud light years across?
Imagine a hypothetical alternate earth where there was no coal.
Could humans ever have invented things like current computers, the internet, and so on? Is there any alternate pathway of historical development that does not require coal, and achieves modern levels of technology?
>>8136237 We have other fossil fuels right? Just no coal?
The US would not be the greatest country on Earth. Our success is largely because of our enormous coal deposits (there's a reason both sub periods of the Carboniferous are named after places in the US). But with other fossil fuels available we would simply rely on them more.
I saw a reddit AMA where Richard Dawkins was asked "what is the biggest mystery to science?" and he answered consciousness was. What do we not understand about consciousness? To me it seems like it is just simply the ability to reason?
>>8136065 Here is my thinking for this. intelligence = ability to reason. with reason/logic being a limited thing (deduction upon reality, reality being limited) so too will the ability to apprehend this deduction (intelligence) be limited. hypothetically if a person we're to be absent all ability to reason, their mind being equatable to a sort of fathomless dream, are they still an intelligent being? no they are not. if define intelligence as ability to reason, without reason there cant be intelligence. consciousness = an apprehension of reality if they do not have the ability to reason they do not have the ability to apprehend. therefore consciousness = ability to reason
Being so smart that you perceive actions before you're doing them. It's a rather ambiguous term as were not the only things living, just the only ones deciding to live. Not all decisions are conscious, so how are we to tell which part of our thinking is the conscious bit? There are of course levels of conciousness as in some people are infinitely less concious in their decision making. Most decisions have been social and cohabiting ones, even though they persisted from times we would not have considered ourselves as concious. Is relating to another's intelligence... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Just finished reading The Walking Whales: From Land to Water in Eight Million Years. It's a reasonably easy read and a comprehensive guide to what we know about the evolution of the whale. Do you guys know of any other books that provide a readable outline of the evolution of a clade?
While this isn't the same thing and it is fiction, but the book "Evolution" by Stephen Baxter follows humanities' evolution from tiny mouse-like creature to homo sapiens, to some other thing later on. It is actually pretty depressing.
This man thinks that the insights of theoretical computer science are as deep and as important in the endeavour of understanding the universe as the ones of physics. According to him theoretical computer science is like physics with a bottom-up approach.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.