/sci/ - Science & Math

beyond science™

I think videogames fucked my brain chemistry. Every day I get episodes of extreme mental exhaustion and brain fog, the only thing that makes it go away is strong stimulation of some kind, the kind of stimulation that videogames used to give me, the "this is interesting and feels good" kind of stimulation, the problem is that I don't even feel like playing videogames anymore, so now that doesn't help and I experience these episodes for several hours before they go away. I have been to neurologists and there is nothing visibly wrong with my brain. I don't want to go to a psych because I don't want to become a drug addict having to rely on amphetamines to fucking function. What is this, /sci/? What can I do? No one gives me an answer. I'm not even sure if it's some sort of addiction side-effect or what.

>>12176950
As soon as it said "we science skeptics," you should've been skeptical of the intentions of the author.

Why do articles keep getting posted as reposts of reposts of reposts instead of the actual meta-analyses? Hell, the people running the actual study keep their raw data in Github repos. Using actual data makes a much finer point than a blogspot article from a self-proclaimed science skeptic.

>https://osf.io/e81xl/
>https://osf.io/ezcuj/

>>12153472
>>12153513
>>12153550
cope

>>10490941
The very post you're replying to shows that renewables receive 2-3 times as much funding as fossil fuels.
That said, I personally think no source of energy should be subsidized, but that's beside the point.
>8-year war
That's a non-sequitur. My point was that you can't make the argument that big oil money influences research but big solar/windmill somehow doesn't. We're literally talking about the transfer of billions of dollars a year from taxpayers to the renewable industry. How come the renewable CEOs enjoy blind trust and the benefit of doubt, but oil CEOs don't? Money is money.

>>10491400
I have no conspiracy theory, I'm not denying climate change, and I'm not saying we shouldn't act on it. I'm saying there's moneyed interests on both sides, and if you want truly unbiased information, you should always keep that in mind.

>>10018428
Fine then

B is the answer.

Proof:

Let R1=(A,B,C) and R4=(A+B-C,2(B-A),2(C-(B-A)))=(A4,B4,C4) Moreover, fix A4=B4=C4.

Then the condition that B4=C4 implies that C=2(B-A). One obtains upon inputting this into A4 and equating with B4 the expression:
A4=3A-B
A=3B/5.

This further implies that R1=(3B/5,B,4B/5) and R4=(4B/5,4B/5,4B/5).

The constraint that each element A1,B1, and C1 of R1 are natural numbers implies that B mod 5=0 or B=5n where n is an element of the natural numbers. Substituting, we have:

R1: (3n,5n,4n)
R4: (4n,4n,4n).

Naturally, any n will produce an integer value for all associated elements of R1 an R4; this satisfies our first constraint. Our next constraint is that A, B, or C =50.

Looking at R1, we see that neither A nor C can satisfy this constraint because neither 3n=50 or 4n=50 produces a natural number.

Hence we conclude that n=10 and B=50 with the initial round:

R1: (30,50,40).

This completes the proof.

Will Big Pharma ever allow the cure for cancer to be invented?

What would they do to the person that discovers it?

>>9856130
You shouldn't care what people want to hear. The truth and your reputation are both infinitely more important than what some fags want to believe.
Most people will make amazing discoveries maybe once or twice in their entire lives, if at all.
You have to decide if you want to go the way of the borderline liar in a desperate attempt to please people, or if you want to walk the straight and narrow.

There is a crisis of reproducibility in science right now, and if people get to know you as a dependable, level-headed person, this, and other scandals will never touch you.
A rock-hard, reliable reputation is not cheap, in the exact same way lying about how great your research isn't either.

>That's how you become the boring science nerd.
Not if you come off as someone who cares more about integrity than about what people think. Most people can tell if someone is a genuine person overall. They might not be able to tell if you're lying at any one time, but they can tell if you're fake.
If you're always solid, eventually people will know you as the guy who can be trusted, and there's tremendous value in that.

Although, based on you post, that ship has probably already sailed...

>>9062066
>Because there AREN'T light sources every night in nature
There are in cities. Or is the problem that it's not global enough to influence an entire species?

>No predators have evolved to specifically hunt bugs that swarm around lights
Why would they need to evolve for that?
See bugs around lights -> go there to eat them.

>>9049711
"They" would be probably be a single megaintelligence a lá the Borg. The entire notion of an economy would be meaningless to the entity.

>>9045471
Reminder that there is no empirical data to back up the claim that higher-IQ people are less attractive. In fact, it's the opposite, and intelligence is better associated with attractiveness.

Brain up, brainlet.

https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/I2011.pdf
http://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/JEP.9.2011.3.2

>>8589614
>Where you are from
Australia
>Your major
B.Sc in biomedical science with honours
>Do you have a job
nope, trying to look for one
although i'll be starting my PhD this year and I'll work at uni as a demonstrator anyway
>How much do you earn
$0 (live with parents)
>What do you do
gene and cell therapy
but i also shitpost and play games
>Do you even like what you studied?
yeah
>Would you switch to something else?
nah

>>8479808
They're all scientifically proven illusions.

>>8434865
does computer security count?

>>8418453
what the frickin heck?

>>8164269
This must prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. SCIENCE IS REAL

>>7557849

>>7522572
>Is there a PDF for that book?
I'm not big into piracy. Wouldn't know.

>Do you think watching those lectures will help me at all?
No idea, but you should briefly skim over one of the lectures and compare it with the content on the test (surely there must be a document or syllabus somewhere).
They both should be about equal--calculus is standardized.

Also, dubs GET.

>>7387585
>sell product
>say scientifically proven

Is it possible to draw a loop-free multigraph with degrees 4, 6, 8? I don't think so but need confirmation.

>>6955388
Has no one taken into consideration the fact that war has churned out some of the greatest leaps in technological advancement?

why?

>>6952327
I can attest to this

>>6937839
I know it's glamourised but it's so stupid