/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12023082
>slowly

>>11649554
>you are now aware that they can spray venom out of their stinger like mace that will permanently scar your eyes

What is the scientific explanation for an ingrown nail?

If you had three humans to do any experiments you want on, without any consequences what would you do?
Let’s say your funds on needed equipment etc. are unlimited.

i'm sure they fried my brain somehow. i've mostly weaned them off since January this year, but until now i still have a hard time remembering shit, studying, talking to people, and even typing posts like this.

i would have asked if there are any substances that could help recover some of that brain power somehow but i thought it would be stupid looking for even more things to take. should i just exercise?

gif related

First of all, it's still not peer-reviewed, they just stuck it up on OSF: https://osf.io/zn79k/
It's being done at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, not any kind of science or technology department.

The title is: "Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images." The actual result is that they trained a neural network to be more accurate than *untrained*, *unmotivated*, *uninterested* humans at detecting sexual orientation.

The AI had access to 95% (~3800 per category) of the sample to practice on, and the testing was done on the other 5% (~200 per category).

They took no particular effort to prevent duplicate persons from being included in the set, even though people commonly make multiple dating accounts and use other people's pictures, so much of the accuracy may have resulted from the system effectively recognizing people it knows are gay from the training set. It took into account things like grooming and facial expression, on dating sites.

The humans were hired on Mechanical Turk and simply told to make their best guess. They were not paid based on their performance, but only for completing the task (i.e. no reason to care about getting it right). They were given no opportunity to study the thousands of examples the AI was trained on. As far as I can tell, the paper doesn't mention how many humans participated. I'm not sure they know, given how Mechanical Turk works.

Look at how they interpret the results:
>The findings reported in this work show that our faces contain more information about sexual orientation than can be perceived or interpreted by the human brain.

This was a bozo study, by bozos.

>>8562544
It wouldn't be able to reach space. The Earth's mantle will sag in that spot once it reaches a certain height. the best use is to build it as high as possible up to the limit of it sagging the mantle. Then build a launch pad or whatever on that. You'd most likely be able to get a 10 miles high "mountain" if you design it correctly. Keep in mind that Olympus Mons is 13.6 miles high, but it is solid.

>>8562548
>I'm guessing that has to do with materials mainly

Correct. there's only so much you can do with the materials known to us. Of course you could build something using metal foam, but it wouldn't be usable for anything.

>colonize Mars

KYS

>>8422911
Gravity ensures that it landed. But in what condition?

>>8415993
>medicate the public without their direct consent
>...if you question it...

No one should medicate the public, period.

Am I the only one who sees the dominance of maths in explanations of physics as something of a cancer?
I have no problems at all with using nothing but formulas to make practical use of one's physics knowledge, but forumlas have limited use in learning, because they're only good for demonstrating explained relationships.
You can get a good grade still of course, if you have a purely mathematical understanding of a phenomenon (since assessment style reflects teaching style) but creative applications of such knowledge are out of the question.

And yet no one seems to see a problem with this.
Earlier today I saw a question on Hawking Radiation.
>asker: "Why do small black holes radiate more energy?"
>responder: "because T = 1/r"
I've got a bounty of mathematical explanations before me when I go onto the internet, but being able to calculate and not know what's really going on is useless when I want to research if Hawking Radiation can be used to exploit a loophole in entropy implied by many worlds theory.

And then, of course, there's pages of information that evert several words uses a jargon term that'd take at least a minute to learn the meaning of. Sure, it saves the author and sufficiently learned readers some time, but does it have to be that every source of information on advanced topics is like this? There's a lot of science out there to learn and to generalise any of it one needs to have a flawless understanding of a large scope, but the only ways to learn like that is to either be a level 99 autist or be reading the science equivalent of baby food.