Or their mom might be a hacker.
Incidentally, there are many cases where I don’t care about my username at all and have to come up with something. I’d find it acceptable if they’d just give me a number and a password, or let me register just with a password (perhaps provided by them?), maybe plus e-mail.
Exactly—the term’s quite loosely defined.
How do you know meetups all meetups attract “losers”? What is—to you—the defining characteristic of such “losers”? How certain are you that your personal experience with one kind of meetup generalizes well to all meetups? How do you know there are fewer or no losers elsewhere, e.g. on the internet?
This is a good place to post your poem.
Thank you for this post. I have made similar experiences, and feel much more dim-witted when speaking in person (especially compared to others).
Upvoted for changing your mind.
Is
Just in case you’re not aware, this is a double-comment. I’ve seen this with another comment of yours recently. Probably happens when one double-clicks the comment button.
You might want to post this on the hpmor subredit page instead—or in the latest open thread. I don’t, however, think that a top-level discussion post is necessary for this.
In any case, Snape saying that the number of valence electrons of carbon is a meaningless fact is weak evidence that he didn’t read it in Harry’s mind.
There’s also leakage by diffusion of gasses, which might be non-negligible due to the high pressure gradient, although the diffusion coefficient e.g. of water through steel should be low. Not sure how that works out.
Most vessels are spherical or cylindrical, which is already pretty good (intuitively, spherical vessels should be optimal for isotropic materials). You might want to take a look at the mechanics of thin-walled pressure vessels if you didn’t already.
It’s important to note that the radial stresses in cylindrical vessels are way smaller than the axial and hoop stresses (which, so to say, pull perpendicular to the “direction” of the pressure). This is also why wound fibers can increase the strength of such vessels.
Materials science undergraduate student here (not a mechanical engineer, my knowledge is limited in the area, I did not go to great lengths to ensure I’m right here, etc.).
A typical method to generate high pressures in research are diamond anvils. This is suitable for exploring the behavior of cells and microorganisms under high pressure.
For human preservation, however, you’d need a pressure vessel. As the yield strength of your typical steel is on the order of 100, maybe 300 MPa, you’re really up against a wall here, materials-wise. I don’t doubt that suitable alloys for human-sized pressure vessels at 350 MPa exist, however, such vessels will be expensive, and controlling processes within will be difficult. In any case, generating such pressures will probably not involve a moving piston.
I can’t really tell whether or not the procedure you’ve outlined is viable, but I’m quite sure it’s far from trivial, just from an engineering point of view.
The concerns of user passive_fist are also valid.
Please insert some line-breaks at suitable points to make your comment be more readable. At the moment it’s figuratively a wall of text.
Edit: Thank you.
If you make a joke on a day where jokes are made, but another person is not on the same day anymore, that person might not get the joke because they don’t think the day matters.
I hate april fool’s jokes across time zones. You don’t expect them on April 2nd, do you?
Although honestly, what kind of idiot had the idea to order the date mm/dd/yyyy?
But well-explained.
(paying a karma toll for this)
The username “Username” with password “password” can be used by anyone wishing to stay anonymous.
The following would be a better argument, IMO: No, it wouldn’t, because you are presupposing that one already understands why one would want to do such a difficult thing. The whole point of pointing out the implications of acceleration in mortality is to point out real mortality rates can imply very long lifespans and that squaring the curve would have major and desirable implications.
Making up numbers is not the way to do this, then. If you want to introduce people to the idea that very long and healthy lives are possible and desirable, a historical perspective would be good. Or you could discuss how we lead relatively healthy lives until about 60, and then somehow the decay kicks in—which is really a shame because we’ve been healthy for so long, and there shouldn’t be a moral reason why it can’t stay this way.
Only once the potential benefits have been established does anyone care about how feasible fixing it would be. There are two blades to the idea of ‘cost-benefit’, and you are dismissing out of hand anyone even trying to roughly estimate the latter.
No I’m not. I agree that living happily ever on would be an enormous win for most humans. And if the author must, they are free to write fiction on how much better the world would be.
Additionally, my point is not that it’s ultra-mega-hard to extend the human lifespan, and that we shouldn’t even try. But we have to take into account how the system actually works, and then start from there. That is, we have to build a model, then see if we can improve the situation (i.e. extend human lifespan to 1000 years) by varying parameters within the model.
If that’s not possible (it’s not possible if mortality follows a doubly-exponential curve with a hard cutoff around X years, where X might be extended by 50% - if things go well), we go see if we can circumvent the model, so that it doesn’t apply anymore. Blood donations might be a stab at this. Calorie restriction isn’t.
To use your atom example:
Right now, our power sources like coal and oil produces X joules per gram; but we can see by simply calculating E=MC^2 that the potential energy of somehow tapping into mass-energy conversion rather than normal chemical potentials would generate multiple orders of magnitude more energy than from normal strategies. This is tantalizing and even believable.
There’s a difference between this, and the original writing. You already have a good reason why the real energy content of matter should be way higher than it appears to be. The only grounds on which someone would reply to this
That’s just not how the relevant model works. Thusly, I don’t think the arguments brought forth are good enough to warrant the claim that atomic energy is possible.
would be that the author of the piece on E=mc^2 then goes on discussing various techniques to increase the energy output of coal burning, perhaps using a novel oxidizer or special reaction conditions. That would be silly, after one has understood why chemical potential energy is so limited.
But, in a way, the author of the original article does exactly this by discussing the impact of various drugs or treatments like calorie restriction. Only that the limits set by the Gompertz model—not the parameters, but the model—and a way to overcome the Gompertz curve—are not discussed.
I have a feeling that I don’t understand your point or how it relates to mine, or that I don’t see that you would understand my point.
Also I’m getting a hostile vibe from your reply, so while you may answer and I will read your answer, I won’t reply to that anymore as this kind of stress negatively impacts my expected lifespan.
I’m pretty sure “Humans, please ignore this post” wasn’t serious, and this article is mainly for humans.