/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9733153
Answer me you fucking stoner nazis

Ok, I’ve got a slightly more targeted question. How do I get gud at Algebra if I’m not naturally geared for it? I really want to be an engineer in the future, but it seems almost like I’ve hit a brick wall with my remedial Algebra class at the local JC. It definitely runs in the family, neither of my parents are math people, but I’ve also got extended family who got up to university level calculus in high school. What are some study techniques or ways of thinking I can use to flip the switch in my brain so that I can start understanding this shit?

>>9675912
Don't distract OP if they needs to go to a DR

Assuming that you touched it on your fingertip would immediately tying off the finger tight and going to the ER be best course of action for preventing it from being absorbed into rest of body? Or is this not something we should speculate on here. I watched that video and feel bad. Is there any way to prevent that bad stuff from happening?

>>9610207
Thank you, finally i understood

>>9381178
Good thing I have already began accepting the fact that I will never be able to do research, no idea what to do with my useless mathematics masters degree now though, retail?

Please help I want to major in stem but I suck at maths also

Q: At what point does SO2 in the air become toxic?

>>8720214
グーグル翻訳はあまりにもたわごとです

>>8719777
stampf makinv fune ov mi artismo

I tried to replace all the letters, sorted by their respective quantity of occurrence, with the known frequency in the English language ("Letter frequency" on Wikipedia). However, nothing came of it. I should have known better, because the text seems to have no repeating words and starts with Qq.

Anyway, here's the replacement list I got
{"v" -> "e", "w" -> "a", "g" -> "r", "m" -> "i", "t" -> "o",
"q" -> "t", "i" -> "n", "n" -> "s", "r" -> "l", "e" -> "c",
"b" -> "u", "h" -> "d", "p" -> "p", "k" -> "m", "u" -> "h",
"c" -> "g", "l" -> "b", "s" -> "f", "a" -> "y", "f" -> "w",
"j" -> "k", "x" -> "v", "y" -> "x", "o" -> "z", "z" -> "j",
"d" -> "q"}

>>8615165
which one then

What about pharma chem?

>>8220272
He was always a dickhead, childhood you just couldn't see it yet.

>>8220253
Okay, you got me.

>>8024088
>"created" reality
No, created the concept. OP has free reign to be a bitch about the names they give their own private notions. Debating our common intuitions about the nature of perception and reality is meaningless if OP has their own private notion for what "reality" is supposed to mean. Yes, by any sane definition of the term, OP's perception doesn't directly imply anything other than the act of perception itself. But when OP claims to have authored a notion of what "reality" is, that argument isn't automatically relevant anymore.

>>8023993
>Nobody could ever explain this concept to me if I didn't already know it.
You can never prove that.

I hereby propose an experiment: We construct a version of you that doesn't have that, then teach it that concept, then measure the differences to see it you wouldn't be exactly the same whether it was taught to you or it was something that was always there.

Let's make it falsifiable.

>>8023856
>Experience is invisible.
Wrong. If it were invisible, there wouldn't be seven billion people clearly having them. You might not yet know it to be clear, but I can assure you that it isn't by interpreted proxy that it becomes clear.

>>8023767
>Which is not true
Not necessarily, no. But recall that OP's argument involves OP having created the concept of reality. If that's the case then their definition of reality might not have anything to do with nouns vs. verbs. They "win" by shifting the goalposts on the definition of reality rather than having an honest intellectual discussion with actual real people who don't abuse their ability to come up with aberrant definitions.

I was arguing as a logician there, not as a reality philosopher. Boiling things down to if-then clauses can help deal with definition abusers because if they consent to your if-then claim/logic/reasoning, then you can directly question the claim and the only thing they can do it backpedal or else fuck up their own goalposts.

>>8010654
The reason why we find gold attractive is because it's the color of urine. Oir ancestors, same as dogs, use urine to mark their teritory. It's a form of status.

>>7901887
>telegraph.co.uk
>Is this just popsci bullshit
yes

>>7901425
>130-150, depending on kind of test
>male
>organic chem
>one time a day, mostly

>>7690796
How?

>>7645770
Using a formula list is easier than using a notecard in my experience, since then there's no guesswork to do about what's going to be relevant.