This seems like more of an achievement for the Barbie brand than for the individual director.
NGC 1277 is unusual among galaxies because it has had little interaction with other surrounding galaxies.
I wonder if interactions between galaxies somehow converts regular matter to dark matter.
Oh certainly, that series took quite a risk on writing style and it’s quite divisive.
If you enjoy fantasy, you could try her other series as an alternative. The Inheritance Trilogy is a more standard writing style.
I almost put The Fifth Season down after the first chapter, I remember thinking: “This author has a chip on their shoulder”. I’m glad I persevered though, and I definitely recommend the series to people as it is quite different. I’d suggest giving it another shot.
I might try jumping in again on season 2, thanks.
As a counterpoint to other comments here, I didn’t like Babylon 5. I gave up in the first season on the episode about religions, where each alien race shows a single religion but then humanity shows an enormous number of them.
Showing planets in sci fi as homogenous is a common trope, but such a simplistic take. This resonated poorly with me as I felt the aliens all behaved exactly like humans as well, to the point where you have stand-ins for Jehovah’s witnesses. That episode cemented for me the feeling I had when watching. Babylon 5 is racist against aliens.
Why do you say they have no representation? There are a lot of specific bodies operating in the government, advisory and otherwise, with the sole focus of indigenous affairs. And of course, currently, indigenous Australians are over represented in terms of parliamentarian race (more than 4% if parliamentarians are of indigenous descent).
While in general, I’d agree, look at the damage a single false paper on vaccination had. There were a lot of follow up studies showing that the paper is wrong, and yet we still have an antivax movement going on.
Clearly, scientists need to be able to publish without fear of reprisal. But to have no recourse when damage is done by a person acting in bad faith is also a problem.
Though I’d argue we have the same issue with the media, where they need to be able to operate freely, but are able to cause a lot of harm.
Perhaps there could be some set of rules which absolve scientists of legal liability. And hopefully those rules are what would ordinarily be followed anyway, and this be no burden to your average researcher.
See this comment on another thread about this for some more details.
So, taking the average bicep volume as 1000cm3, this muscle could: exert 1 tonne of force, contact 8% (1.6cm for a 20cm long bicep), and require 400kV and must be above 29 degrees Celcius.
Maybe someone with access to the paper can double check the math and get the conversion efficiency from electrical to mechanical.
I expect there’s a good trade-off to be made to lower the force but increase the contraction and lower the voltage. Possibly some kind of ratcheting mechanism with tiny cells could be used to overcome the crazy high voltage requirement.
I asked the same question of GPT3.5 and got the response “The former chancellor of Germany has the book.” And also: “The nurse has the book. In the scenario you described, the nurse is the one who grabs the book and gives it to the former chancellor of Germany.” and a bunch of other variations.
Anyone doing these experiments who does not understand the concept of a “temperature” parameter for the model, and who is not controlling for that, is giving bad information.
Either you can say: At 0 temperature, the model outputs XYZ. Or, you can say that at a certain temperature value, the model’s outputs follow some distribution (much harder to do).
Yes, there’s a statistical bias in the training data that “nurses” are female. And at high temperatures, this prior is over-represented. I guess that’s useful to know for people just blindly using the free chat tool from openAI. But it doesn’t necessarily represent a problem with the model itself. And to say it “fails entirely” is just completely wrong.
Looks like the same guys were doing publicity around 2019 https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-07-30/australia-joins-lab-grown-meat-industry/11360506
At the time, they claimed the cost to make a single hamburger was $30-$40, and now 4 years later, they claim to have gotten it down to $5-$6 per patty.
The article claims the first demonstration of a lab-grown hamburger was in 2013.
So 6 years from proof of concept to (probably) first capital raise, then 4 years to start regulatory approval, 1 year for approval to take place (target is March next year).
From Wikipedia: this is only a 1-sigma result compared to theory using lattice calculations. It would have been 5.1-sigma if the calculation method had not been improved.
Many calculations in the standard model are mathematically intractable with current methods, so improving approximate solutions is not trivial and not surprising that we’ve found improvements.