/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7097938
>tfw you experienced the day when millions of people can't see reality properly

is this your first optical illusion?

>>6603013
I believe I was the one who found it elsewhere on the interwebs and brought it to /sci/ for repost after repost.
also google agrees with me
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZitY1dX62T8DpgAL48avER3fdc2I88DsbD4L3aqdPUfBKvIaGM3ZQskxSY0l7U6FYdPZw8_1q-4IepvWwO8P3myk8zLm7OtFQpfgISpDaxBtcbn71JIjtkaMJg2tbF3GBgzca8rjOqXkdfOd20dJdFvWDbNLDBF2WA4yNI4bMjGo0hn-rHGSRPAyKtgxa-k9w2RqlFeWm06zLy2IIrNn6tREjd7NQh4JBFktM1QvRLotxLw4cIgezwoWekpFDDjF1MevymvpqBHYPzpDrr6VbjoiHuFSIyeSk_1DVC2CnKweT_1CXPJd-h7YKrWNOW8_1AP8aESYXNSPQJCu2rLbN9GqT0q_1E9iTJFkg_1QUZv2X-653Ws-9wyHSaNvRkdNpA98fouHNXsmWOy-stpJhNflj04zTXNNxbN0B5DHg_1ilFWbB_1K1VlCSRLJNow3uN0DwheYXdg4tFd_1UIc9SjIfJDGT-nYWqhfLI8AWvuLU2KvmvNRaSXq0aBnaqoaLZeOjJbz9j-gO1J6hl0PE5NkphQftbLgGtD53wfH_1t3X2uJUqx6fd6VTDXTvdHSztInHoWWS3WttWOOaTpkW-zM_1gAsK3fDAPFkRiECwzUM-FjgPY2pNEdmi1p3S1OdCEdatySSbUszioAA6tOOTkfWxd3TQ7QwUohvuDmNU8b8UMZgTAo1Iy-0DF0P-2Pmg-dYbU0CYH2pzX9CZ52bSnNuP3TwAZ98e_1gOCRqGRSihmQes2PIWxdmf4myxklMSbO0yxeLKfdTdPWj2qmQ7l_1vpRhXxD4Dvm3tYFDqisnlkDSfy0Q11RxVHtTk0s_11xz4TK9XL_17C1lQ0FdHWcKpzA6oik28Y1kiFUr9OGPdWn5q4jeNZTNqMCdxGu8rJSJJMv5ZGhz9sfPXKVedaFUqc5Rf54dQrhjZbHa95g85CcrB35w9sNHiukzuRLWCirGrUubnXIqeb6JtVePX_1V6HeRwgbr9lIb86ZDdd0RrlTQALb3WLfmm8OsbsiJzyaEB2VxGhRePjEsnZPDpGMQ1uBOdzf8_195Ty_1oQ2wVXAK11xRf-iHCS0Xe-KREJaTQudKRyT6G65D7YLaT-yA-QrwsZUGYa1iD7jr0Pg9iNTBQ2SlECZzMIZ0O-ST9mMYKVNyK256vZ531Q66XNjvzsxKnWRVuMqYORy_1DKPDWaarZKfb_1EAmRZSOu2V3ZB7EQe4IAybDH0Ur_11wKkLzO8OesCX_1xbAz2KcNyJTtfufsrbEIHkghD0AUPYoRxaTUAVSa_1HTLPFJbFO2qwd1WBHf9H9qCJg4E02NQ5T_1J89IcrYexn_1cfIpNeRsMwKII-cUDavNgJ1zwXicRLoGUWf1pLqzEJAjtAxwGOACKrwn2Q

>>6553823
I seem to remember a car with a fifth wheel for parallel parking

>>6409052
Oh I agree with you, but NASA should get out of the rocket design and contracting business. They suck at it. Originally the shuttle was going to do commercial flights if they had operated at a level where they could compete I would have been all for it. But NASA fell on its face hard with the shuttle payload wise (not saying the human science wasn't worth quite a bit though). Then they fell on there face even harder with constellation and they haven't fixed it with SLS (but is better than consolation though).

NASA's roal should be a customer not a general contractor. If they have a requirement for a new bigger rocket then they should push that out to industry. If they have custom requirements then yes they should at least subsidize development but let the manufacturers be in charge of design.

Government should operate the payload not the launch vehicle.

>>6354320

>>6324430

>>6034827
Try another variant instead.

Our villain have a machine that can put tiny controllers into all the synapses in the brain.

The controllers sense and transmit signals, but they can also be used to sense and block signals, or create signals where none previously existed. So far so good.

Now the machine rerouts all the villain outputs(movement etc) to the boys and vice versa. The boy now controls the body of the villain and the villain controls the boy. It then flips the sensor data the other way, what the boy see, taste, smell etc is routed to the villains brain and again, the same for the villain.

The current perception of the individuals now is that they've swapped bodies, but if the boy as the villain now picked up that revolver and shot the villain, it would be the boy that died, it's just the routing that's hijacked the actual thinking parts still reside in their original bodies.

Because the machine is bored and a super-AI(and the real villain here), it decides to play a game. It routs the villains sensory data to the villain, and to the boy, the boys own sensory data is blocked. It then blocks the villains motor command centers and routes the boys centers to the villain instead, but the boys motor command in turn is connected to the villains neocortex(personality, executive center) and to further spice it up, the computer generates a third-party model of a hippocampus(memory) that it feeds to the villains neocortex.

So now the villain remember a past where he was a painter and avid philantrope, he have the psychopathic personality of a villain and he commands his body via the motor command of the boy.

Do you mean to say that we still have clear persons in this situation? What if the computer creates a highly precise simulation of the villains neocortex and blocks his original one? Who is who in this situation?

>>5673918
>theoretical evidence
so I guess... all theories can produce evidence thereof... like the bible...phlogiston... Buddhists...(insert theory)

>cant be directly observed
yup sounds like a familiar statement made by an ignorant person. (go back in history and count how many times people said that "X" is not possible)

in time, perhaps you will accrue a higher wisdom than the embarrassing quantity you possess at the moment, kid.

>>5535515
most people don't like admitting that they really don't understand anything.

They don't like travelling outside their comfty box.

take this picture, for instance. most people call it an 'optical issuion' rather than a brain failure.

you didn't know it was an illusion until the 'truth' was presented.

most Christians didn't know it was an illusion until the 'truth' was presented.

makes you wonder what other 'brain failures' there are.

The fact is, we "know" less than 1%.

w^2 + 12w + 32 = (w + 4)(w + 8)
4w^2 + 12w -16 = 4(w^2 + 3w - 4) = 4(w - 1)(w + 4)

[(w+4)(w+8)] / [4(w - 1)(w + 4)]

>cross out identical terms in the numerator and denominator: eliminate (w+4)

[(w+4)(w+8)] / [4(w - 1)(w + 4)] = (w+8)/4(w-1)

>the simplified form is:

(w+8)/4(w-1)


This is sophomore high school math. Apply yourself.

>>5032996

You're circling around my point here. No one knows what intelligence is. At this point you're better off trusting philosophers (I'm not joking) to answer that question. I'm a neuroscience major doing undergrad research under a professor whose focus is cognitive neuroscience (her Ph.D. is in biological psychology, from before the days when "neuroscience" was big), if you're wondering about my background. Certainly someone who is retarded is going to have a low IQ, and I would say that many bright people are going to have high IQ's if you test them. That does not necessarily mean that IQ is a solid measure of intelligence, because IQ only measures a tiny part of cognitive ability.

Also I apologize about the university/college confusion. Here in the United States the two words are used interchangeably, something which I fall victim to even if I disapprove of it.

Hey, I checked the sticky for good math resources but didn't find anything in particular to what I was looking for.
I'm essentially looking for basic math real life word problems. If any out there that's a tutor or a teacher and knows a reliable site, please share. Also, gif unrelated.

I'm the guy making the majority of the longer posts in this thread. I want to put forward an idea that I have been toying with as an interlude to this discussion:

The purity of a field should not be taken as a measure of general knowledge. The fact that physics is more pure than chemistry does not make physics any more rigorous. All that means is that you are required to know less about science in general. Chemists must know some biology and physics, on top of their own field. Biologists must know quite a bit of chemistry and some physics. Neuroscientists must know biology, chemistry and physics. Psychologists must know neuroscience, biology, chemistry, and some physics. And so on.

Physicists, however, must know some chemistry.

This is why rankings based on "purity" are faulty. Physics is an honorable and extremely difficult pursuit, but by and large physicists prove to be poor debaters in the other fields of science, because they are required to know very little about the world around them other than what pertains to their degree. So let's not start making vast sweeping generalizations about fields that we are never even expected to know anything about.

>>4146072

Wat? 1.3 GPA?