/sci/ - Science & Math

I get that they're supposed to be 'challenging', but over social media and IRL situations I've seen tons of students who get grades that are considerably horrible (<50% in some cases) and yet, they seem to continue on in their carrier/degree just fine. How do they get away with this?

>>15273716
>headlines instead of contextualised quotes and papers. Many things you might have heard may be either false (non-climate scientists giving predictions), miscommunicated (tipping points being a doomsday), or given inappropriate significance (cold-fusion-tier contentious papers).
So you're saying there's a massive disinformation problem in climate journalism and activism? I wonder when governments and social media will start cracking down on irrational climate alarmism.

>>15181414
If race is only skin deep why does literally no one ever mistake an albino nigger for white?

According to studies neurones dont age, they can live indefinitely. this implies two things

1) we are not copies of our previous selves, contrary to other organs in our body our brain doesn't change. we are the same person through our whole life
2) if we manage to make other cells in our body immortal we could effectively live indefinitely without requiring any other intervention to our brain

>The proposition was first stated as a theorem by Pierre de Fermat around 1637 in the margin of a copy of Arithmetica.
So where's the book?

Are Scots-Irish people White? Or are they nigger nosed snakes?

T.part Scots-Irish.

How do we know that dinosaurs existed and what they looked like? It seems kinda fishy to me that we know so much about something that we've never seen in real life.

What is the mass of Saturn?

Is IQ a good prediction of how someone is going to do in school?

If there are infinite possibilities, wouldn't that also mean there aren't any possibilities?

>Is the world prepared?
>What would happen to countries like Iraq? which their entire economy is dependent on selling oil and nothing else.

masturbation.
does it have any scientifically proven benefits/cons?

Hey optimum theory guy! Where is your work? The youtube channel is deleted, the web page is deleted. Did you realize that it's nonsense, or the scam became not too profitable?

If someone tells you that when you no longer exist you experience “blankness” or a void you think about it. Then after thinking about it for a moment, you realize that this statement is false. Because the empty set contains no elements. So if nothing exists, then there is nothing there to observe the set. It follows that you would always be an observer of some object. I'm going to informally call this the “fundamental axiom” just for now.

If you are reading this, then I'm sure we can both agree that you are existing in a universe that is finely tuned for life, and you can trace your existence back through a continuous set of events we call natural history. To the novice observer, they might conclude that the reason why this history and the set of fine tuned laws exists is that they were brought upon by some sort of intelligent designer and that we exist for a reason. But a more astute observer, who accepts the above axiom as truth will conclude that there is nothing special about our universe. If the laws deviated by only small amounts or if our planet had no water on it, then life would not have developed, and there would be no observer to ask the question. This is called the Arthroscopic Principle. Which I believe to be a wrongly named so; since it has nothing to do with being human, but has everything to do with being a generalized observer.

This is how far I find most physicists and philosophers accept their existence. And so would I if it were not for one other question.

(continuted in next comment)