Sorry, but imagine meeting someone new and trying to discuss your feelings on this tower in real life and coming on the way you did. Lol

Okay, so I skimmed and actually your point is that it’s a series of angular changes and not a true curve? I think you should have waited until someone claimed otherwise, but hey, that’s also a hill you can die on.

It’s very obvious you’re now trying to make a point about the support structure but the facade of a building is very much real. It looks like a twist because it does a twist. There’s no angle where you realize the windows don’t actually change planes.

Sorry, I’ll extrapolate more precisely.

Casinos spend unfathomable resources on learning exactly how to wedge their ads deep into your mind and get you hooked on their satisfying little dopamine loops, but it’s your personal failure if you, an ordinary person who is statistically speaking living paycheck to paycheck raising a kid with no savings, succumb to them. And your responsibility to fix it.

Correct?

Sure was nice of the state to require your 2001 online casino to list in writing the odds of winning and enforce payment. But sure, they did you a favor and the state is bad, people are solo acts and you should be free to prey on the less powerful

Does the US benefit from stopping them?

Okay, this study has absolutely fascinated me. Tried to find the full study but failed, but Gang Chen (MIT professor, primary author) has a 40 minute symposium about it. Piped bot incoming, hopefully: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B1PbNTYU0GQ

You replied to a fairly accurate summary of the postulated explanation of an observed phenomena by saying it’s literally impossible. Either the study is faking its* data, or the study has real data but you don’t like the way definitions are playing out here. You’re arguing for both, because it’s really important that this study is wrong, because you don’t like it. But it can’t be both. Let’s assume PNAS didn’t publish a completely fraudulent study about a made-up phenomenon.

The thermal heat that is being transferred is what causes evaporation. That’s the historical understanding. Yes? Energy in, energy out. 1:1 ratio, everything is conserved. But it’s evaporating twice as fast as that measured heat transfer explains. 1=2? That’s not right. Saying “it’s just more heat that you can’t measure” doesn’t make any sense, because you’re claiming that 1.0004 = 2. It’s a new process. Yeah, something happened on a molecular level and there was probably heat transfer. But on a completely different scale than the known process of evaporation through actual ‘macro’ heat transfer. So it’s not the fucking same.

Again, the green thing. If evaporation is caused only by previously understood processes of heat transfer—more energy is more heat transfer is more evaporation—then why does a less energetic green light produce more evaporation than a more energetic blue or violent light?

“The researchers tried to duplicate the observed evaporation rate with the same setup but using electricity to heat the material, and no light. Even though the thermal input was the same as in the other test, the amount of water that evaporated never exceeded the thermal limit. However, it did so when the simulated sunlight was on, confirming that light was the cause of the extra evaporation.”

Sorry to steal so much of your time, but if you’re not fucking what’s so damn important

From the abstract: “We interpret these observations by introducing the hypothesis that photons in the visible spectrum can cleave water clusters off surfaces due to large electrical field gradients and quadrupole force on molecular clusters.”

The commenter’s interpretation of the summary was pretty close to the language Chen used.

To be clear, this article is written by an English native speaker who is summarizing a study written in English primarily by a man who’s been at U.S. universities for three decades. Unless you meant it was a bad summary, which I don’t think it was, but that’s opinion.

I hope you lack the time because you’re setting up your own study. This one was set up due to previous observations of rates of evaporation double or greater than those understood to be mathematically possible. Hell of an equipment error. It also observes a difference in the rate of evaporation under different colors of light, with the highest rate of evaporation occurring under green light, which you would probably also deem impossible, since color has nothing to do with it and green isn’t even the most energetic wavelength. An MIT professor, a postdoc, and four others hang their hat on these results, and the reality of this phenomenon. rdyoung disagrees with them in a comments section on an obscure forum. Which source might be more credible?

Sorry, I forgot that when you want to sell a bunch of stocks everyone just buys them all at your preferred high price, and then the price magically goes down after

Why must someone upset at potential losses turn them into actual losses? You can’t think of an alternative, like pushing articles on some mouthpiece publication, maybe Gizmodo? Nope, if anyone cared they’d all show it by losing money and influence, obviously

obviously not

On the other hand, do you think every movie is made with love and attention to detail or do you think some are shoved out there because they think people are dumb enough to just hand money over? Obviously not, in my opinion—many movies are phoned in. Many sequels, and evidence suggests all known “cinematic universes” tell a ramshackle and uninspired story in hopes that viewers of the original material are attached enough to the characters that they come back for more, instead of trying a new story with new characters.

Nobody is obliged to appreciate a movie simply for existing. It wasn’t a gift.

Healthy, haha