• 40 Posts
  • 390 Comments
Joined 3年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年9月13日

help-circle



  • The creative justifications for creationism that try to approach something like science amuse me. Like Kents Hovind and Ham are both too stupid and incurious to be fun; a creationist who’s at least knowledgeable enough to look at “variable c” “”theories”” is entertaining to engage with. That’s part of how I’d justify calling this a “meme” anyway - it’s one of the brighter ones manufacturing a meme to sell to the stupid ones.







  • The physics of knitting is so complicated that SciShow fucked it up and had a bunch of people mad at them.

    Textiles are complicated crazy wonderful things. The drape of a fabric is going to be related to the materials it’s made of (cotton, linen, wool, acrylics and polyesters, blends of all of the above and more to various percentages…) as well as just the process of making.

    Woven is very sturdy and doesn’t stretch. You can’t unwind the whole thing by getting it caught on something. Your jeans and slacks are probably made of woven material, because otherwise you’d accidentally lose your pants to the bump of a nail in a chair or something.

    Knit stretches, but accidentally bump into a door hinge and you’ve unraveled a good chunk of your sweater. It’s good at moving though. Most things are done on knitting machines in “stockinette” stitches - look for little ‘v’ shapes.

    Gotta keep in mind that the upkeep of clothing was something people use to be spend several hours a week on - beyond just laundry. Weaving takes forever and it’s not particularly exciting. Just imagine how many outfits you’d have in 1600 BC or 1600 AD versus now.

    It’s just really crazy that we are all surrounded by billions of tiny fibers that were twisted into single strands that then become fabrics that then become clothes. Each stage presents uniquely complex and beautiful physics problems.







  • Still interesting to ask about that dent’s shape. We could think about how the chemistry of the material composing it/the way it weathered, or approach it as a micro biome where an entire ecological niche is carved out around going from rain puddle to rain puddle. If the puddle is in concrete, we can talk about issues of equity - do some neighborhoods have different shapes of puddle (eg, how well does the city maintain different neighborhood’s infrastructure.)

    We can accept that the outlines of our puddle are stochastic and arbitrary, but that doesn’t mean we can’t marvel at tracing out its shape.



  • Imagine modeling the components of a word mathematically. Each word has a value in some number of dimensions, like maybe how negative the word is, or how much it has to do with fruit or something.

    You’d be able to calculate a set of eigenvectors to describe each dimension, basically unit vectors. You could have an eigen-name or eigen-compliment, basically just a word that other names or compliments could be expressed in units of that word.

    I think 1984’s Newspeak shows some examples of what eigen-words could be. Stuff like “doublepluscold.”















  • I really don’t get why there’s never any effort when doing l this kind of “stock art” math/science.

    So many fake chemicals, so many equations that are completely meaningless… all of those t-shirts that say “what part of [UNINTELLIGIBLE SCRIBBLING] do you not understand?”

    Is it really that much effort to crack open a linear algebra textbook or look at an actual equation sheet? I always feel sniped by that shit, I tried to read it and figure out what it is but it’s always just a mix of completely random stuff, with half of it truncated to the point of meaninglessness.