It isn’t great when a doctor goes to fetch their colleague to have a look while examinig you. But of course that after all the same boring stuff, they are excited about something unusual. I heard about an ophthalmologist who, out of all her carreer, was most excited about solving someone’s issues by finding crabs in their eyebrows.

Also older than the rings of Saturn

Well, the currently approved lander is a modified starship simply standing on some legs. Your solution would work, but it isn’t what will happen during Artemis. Not with the money available (other options were much more expensive), and even if there was more money, almost certainly not under current administration.

I didn’t read the article, just watched the video. But my guess is dynamic interactions of the exhaust gases with the regolith. I don’t think it’s something there’s much data about. Without a landing pad, a landing of a full Starship may be a risky business. Of course the landing thrusters on the tip should help a lot, but still. And now that I think about it, the launch from the surface might be worrying as well. We’ve seen what Super Heavy did to a robust concrete slab without a deflector. Starship is nowhere near that powerful, but regolith is no concrete, and you preferably don’t want flying debris damaging your engines when you’re trying to come back from the Moon.

Well, they were eaten as medicine for centuries. Not to mention as a paint and possibly for fires…

BTC? No way, that’s way too sane. It’s going to be DOGE.

Why does it get so downvoted? Is it just because it’s an unexpected idea? I think it could be an interesting discussion. Is Charon a moon? How about Ganymede and Moon? They are bigger than Mercury… Of course nothing will change, but the discussion might be interesting. And personally, I wouldn’t mind living on one of the binary planets, if it was useful.

Surprisingly, I just read it actually does, and quite a few. None revolutionary and eye-catching like everybody hoped, but apparently, most of us has graphene in our smartphones, for example. I don’t remember specifics, I can try to look for the article where I read it, if you want very much.

I think a quasi-particle is more like a phenomenon that can mathematically be described in a way a particle would be, rather than just a group of particles. After all, holes in semiconductors are quasiparticles caused by a lack of real particles.

Admittedly, I know very little about quasi-particles.

Cool, so far, I only heard about “dy”

I realised I have a sort of explanatory image at hand.

It has a part that is embedded in a mitochondrial membrane and works as a rotor. The other part is sticking out from the membrane and is responsible for synthesis of ATP from ADP and phosphate. An off-axis part of the rotor pushes the stator, it changes shape and pushes ADP and phosphate together, until they fuse to ATP.

To make the rotor move, it makes use of membrane potential. One side of the membrane has a lot more H⁺ (just protons, really) than the other. The excess H⁺ want to go to the other side. The membrane doesn’t let them through. It is hydrophobic on the inside, so it does’t let through anything charged (like H⁺) or polar (like water). This is the potential and it has quite a lot of energy. ATP synthase lets the H⁺ through by binding them to the rotor in the membrane in a particular place and releases them in another in such a way that forces the rotor to turn almost a full turn before they can leave and stops it from rotating the other way. As mentioned, the rotation is transfered to the stator, changing its shape and thus creating ATP. As a side note, multiple H⁺ are bound on the rotor along its circumference, so each rotation is powered by the potential energy of multiple protons.

Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that, but I don’t think there’s anything downright wrong or misleading in what I wrote. I hope I managed to make it understandable. Also, I recommend animations of the synthase on youtube.

Oh, thank you. I stopped reading when it started to talk about someone else 9 years later, I thought it would be some other controversy. I wish he crowdsourced the $150 though. I wonder how many citations it could have gotten…

And how did it end? Was it published? Did they get off the fucking mailing list? Wikipedia doesn’t say.

I think pokemon used to be an oncosuppressor gene, but since its mutations caused cancer, Pokemon owners threatened (or mayvbe even sued), until the name was changed.

I honestly don’t know how tall I am. I know I’m taller than last time I was seriously measured, but I don’t know by how much and I don’t care. But everyone shrinks during the day anyway. Measuring height to precise centimeters has just a little more sense than weighing someone with precision of ⅒ of kilogram. I have basically no chance but to estimate and possibly round.

Cviridis or whatever they used here? Cviridis (and other scales constructed with the same philosophy) does.

There are colour scales that combine colours and intensities consistently, so that if you discard (or can’t percieve) colour information, you still get a nice black to white scale. For a moment, I though the map used cviridis scale, which has this property and is designed to look as similar as possible to people with various variants of colour blindness. But then I realised that the scale used here has the brightest point in the middle, not on one side.

I didn’t check the calculation, but I guess it assumes perfect conversion of motion to heat. But it’s good to know that if you can get a perfectly static chicken, you can hypersonic-slap it cooked.

Do they actually work? I don’t have actual experience, but I heard that they are only used by people who might benefit from them and thus the authors are automatically suspicious to the reviewer, plus you almost always cite your previous papers in a pretty obvious way, so it’s hardly blind anyway.