@Spacebar Would that mean that potentially people with high amounts of melanin in their skin would likely be safer during the aftermath of a nuclear accident/attack????
I think the better way to understand this is to know that the melanin difference between the fairest skinned person and the darkest skinned person is way smaller than you think. Something like 2x. It makes a big difference to our eyes, but it makes almost no difference to deadly radiation.
Imagine your skin magically became twice as thick, twice as tough. This would be convenient to avoid minor scrapes and scratches, but if you get stabbed or shot you will die just like anybody else. Hence, darker skinned people fare better when fighting off sunburn, but their skin melts off just like anybody else's when the rad levels get truly dangerous, with basically no difference at all.
But how precisely did this happen? What agency was responsible and how was it... Acted upon? I'm trying to imagine this as a city worker, like was there a responsible crew for doing this? Who gave the initial order for it?
When some people aren't considered people at all, socially nor legally, this kind of violence isn't really that big of a leap for many to make (still today, but especially when it was the social and cultural norm).
And this is just a single example out of probably millions in the same vein (here is one list of many with some of the more extreme examples, and only from the US, but the more you dig, the more you find).
Remember - white supremacy isn't the shark, it's the water, and we are absolutely not rid of the systems that allowed that kind of thing to happen then, and still allow it today. Hell people are still burning crosses in their Black neighbours' yards (or shooting them through a closed door), not to mention the systemic aspects like cops killing and abusing Black people without any repercussions, or the prison industrial complex which is essentially modern day slavery.
This is why it's so important to learn actual history, and not just the whitewashed version approved by those with all the power looking to maintain the status quo.
We just need to let it grow until it fills the New Safe Confinement. Then, in a century, when the NSC is due to be replaced we'll be off the hook thanks to the nuclear shroom.
Hieratic developed as a cursive form of hieroglyphic script in the Naqada III period of Ancient Egypt, roughly 3200–3000 BC.[4] Although handwritten printed hieroglyphs continued to be used in some formal situations, such as manuscripts of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, noncursive hieroglyphic script became largely restricted to monumental inscriptions.
So it sounds like Hieroglyphics were used as an everyday eriting system, and over thousands of years this system slowly emerged.
Also a cool fact, the letter A is actually an upside down hieroglyphic called Aleph that shows a cows face with horns.
So, pi involves measuring circles. In fact, just think of a pie. It's a circle, right? There you go. The observable universe is the size of forty of those circles (or pies, shortened to "pi"). The size of it all just blows your mind. As for the hydrogen atom, single atoms are tiny, so you can safely ignore it.
The observable universe is the size of forty of those circles (or pies, shortened to “pi”).
No… Pi is a unitless number representing half a circles angular size.
Forty in the title is the number of digits, the title means that the relative size of the universe compared to a hydrogen atom is 1 followed by 40 zeros. Pi needs to be known to that accuracy to have a proper amount of significant figures.
Imagine trying to measure an ant with an unmarked foot long ruler. Not going to work super well. Your measurement uncertainty is +/- 6 in or 0.5ft. Well above the size of any ant.
Adding in inch marks improves that to +/- 0.5 in or +/- 0.042 ft. Closer to some ants, maybe about right, still not going to give you a measure of the ant but you’ll be able to say if it’s more or less than that. Now measure a circle with this ruler, to get the full accuracy of the ruler, you need only know pi to 4 digits., 3.142. Roughly. Actual uncertainty has some additional stuff going on, but without getting into it there you go.
The observable universe: The most of the Universe that we can see from Earth. There's more universe past what we can see (we think) but we just can't see it.
Circumference of the observable universe: We can only see so far out into space from Earth in all directions, so that makes a circle that has Earth at the center of it. That circle has a circumference, which is the length of that circle if you were to actually walk it.
Calculate circumference: We calculate circumference with the formula 2πr, where r is the radius, the distance from Earth to any one point along that circle we just talked about.
Pi: Pi is irrational and goes on forever. If you calculate the circumference with only five digits of pi, there's a bit of a "rounding" error in your calculation. If you want a more accurate value, you add in more digits of pi. The more digits you add, the more accurate you are.
Accuracy of 1 hydrogen atom: so the furthest we can see out is 46.508 billion light years (I'm not going to get into how we can see that far with a universe that is only 14 and some change billion years old, but we can). So 46.508 * pi * 2 = 292.218382266 billion light years. That's how long the path would be if you were to walk the edge of the observable universe. In meters that would 2.7645993537522 * 10^27.
If you used 5 digits of Pi you would be off by something like 100s of lightyears, or basically billions of meters. If you use 40 digits of pi you would be off by 120pm or 0.000000000012 meters. So for most things, 40 digits of pi is accurate enough for pinpointing any particular atom within the universe. Obviously we can use fewer digits of pi when we want to land a giant rocket on a massive planet like Mars, but knowing 40 digits is good enough for atom sized things, it gives us an upper bound of how accurate we actually need to be. So we can forgo using 50 digits of pi or whatever.
I can't read music but Im sure I could learn to play taps if I exclusively worked on it. I have a feeling they just don't want to have people doing it as an exclusive role so much anymore.
You uh, haven't spent a lot of time around active military members, have you? This is a rather common feeling for them, especially the marine corps. Like, people don't praise Lee Ermy for how wild his role was, but because of how accurate to reality he was.
He said why he enlisted—basically as a kid—but also said his musical talent saved his life. He became a Marine musician and didn’t go into combat. Even 30-40 years later, he still carries his survivor’s guilt and has played Taps at thousands of funerals, in part, I imagine to “combat” that.
My dad had a student deferment, but his best friend enlisted right out of high school, and was killed in Vietnam shortly after Basic Training. Dad kept his friend’s letters and pictures his whole life and even in his 70s would cry easily when discussing it.
O say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watch'd were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bomb bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
'Tis the star-spangled banner - O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto - "In God is our trust,"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
B.) either partially or totally about the US slaves that fought and died on the side of the british.
It's been argued that the phrase "hirelings and slaves" was in use at the time to describe any soldiers fighting under the king (especially those borrowed from other countries), which is true. All the same, Francis Scott Key was a Maryland slave owner whose unit was very thoroughly humiliated in battle by the Colonial Marines, which was composed of runaway slaves.
I imagine the defeat didn't do a whole bunch for his lifelong frothing anti-abolitionist views. While it could be and probably really IS a bit of both, I'm erring on the side of the jab in this stanza being at least partly a spiteful personal grievance.
When the US entered WWI as allies to the british, the 3rd stanza was dropped in order to make friends with them and the majority of people aren't even aware that it exists.
Ahh, yes, that makes sense that it would have been the country sort of discretely shoving the dirty laundry into the closet when company is coming over. Then, once LDS leadership threw in with being “properly” American around the turn of the 20th century, they went HAM on the baseball and apple pie.
Also, I agree that if American slave holders talk about slaves, they probably mean slaves. Antebellum southerners tended not to be shy or subtle. At an absolute minimum the term would have evoked Key’s own attitudes about the slaves he knew.
I don't know if this holds true.. Can one truly be sure the self exists? Can you prove you are not just an AI in a system coded for the illusion of thought/choice?
"I think, therefore I am" sure.. But AI chat bots will also insist they think and 'are'.. But do those 'selfs' actually exist? 🤷♂️
This is one of those philosophical ideas that is ultimately irrelevant to me though, as were kinda forced to accept the world around us is "real" in order to function, whether it actually is or not..
I believe in you 😉
I can't detect if that's sarcasm, but in case it's not: The parrot just alerted the mother, who then saved the child. The headline is just structured in a weird way.
This is an interesting fact, related to Titan, enclosure may not have been instantaneous because they were 90 minutes into the dive. Based on all the information I know it took at least several hours to reach Titanic death. So it's possible these folks didn't die instantaneously, and frankly speaking more information is not helpful at this point
Yeah, one second you're there, the next second you've just been... deleted. Too fast for pain, too fast for conscious thought. If you've got to die, this is the way to go.
TodayILearned
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.