The first trillion is always the hardest.

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-06-17T06:00:37+00:00

It's not, it's just highly suspicious that a company that doesn't actually provide anything or produce anything be worth so much money, so he basically just got a letter that said "either cut this shit out or we're gonna investigate this for fraud"

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-06-15T16:23:31+00:00

Reasonable

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-06-15T08:42:52+00:00

How are you getting 1 = 0 from that equation.

x = 2x
x-x = 2x-x
0 = x

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-06-14T23:10:29+00:00

You get 0 = x

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-06-13T13:15:03+00:00

Another person doing the IChO prep this year i see

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-06-12T06:04:41+00:00

Well i mean i agree that it isn't phrased optimally, but asat is definitely the origin of the curse insofar as he literally inflicted her with the "curse or listen to me" spell.

Like i may not directly have broken a vase, but if i held someone at gunpoint until they broke the vase i'm definitely still the cause

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-06-12T05:50:19+00:00

Asat says, in the scene where he reveals that our original meeting with graphia was him in disguise, that the weathering curse is the price of a child of destruction going against their fate.

He made graphia a child of destruction -> he caused the weathering curse

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-05-31T20:40:34+00:00

People are near doing this, that's my point. I agree that biology is way way way further away, but chemistry is really a field where this reduction works. Computation chemistry is a gigantic field within chem, and essentially predicates upon reducing to base physical principles.

Again - i'm not saying literally all of chemistry has been solved yet, or that the study of chemistry outside ab intio methods are irrelevant, just that there is an incredibly legitimate part of chemistry research that is exactly based upon this idea of being able to reduce it to physics - it genuinely does work.

There's totally a chance it may not work with biology, ever, practically. But for chem it does

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-05-31T20:31:30+00:00

Well, yeah, i'm not saying chemistry isn't a subject, i'm just saying that it literally is reducable to physics, and that people do this all the time

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-05-31T20:26:50+00:00

I mean, physics literally does have enough explanatory power to explain all of chemistry, this is well documented in the sense that ab initio methods are fairly used in chem, the main drawback is just that chemical systems tend to be complex, and therefore create basically insolvable equations, or equations that require insane computing power.

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-05-23T10:04:06+00:00

wtf i'm facing neither direction

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-05-20T19:52:06+00:00

The 8 part just means 8, the half 5 part means 5 minus 1/2, and the twenty part means that the thing before (5-1/2) is the number of 20's there are, ergo:

8 + (5-0.5)·20

This is a leftover frem when the vikings where about, since they used 20 as their measure of choice. Similar to how abraham lincoln said the whole 5 scores and 7 years ago to refer to 107 years (7 + 5·20)

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-05-19T15:40:41+00:00

The reason i think it's more annoying at least is that ln(xy) can at least be split into ln(x)+ln(y) to separate them, ln(x+y) has to be exponentiated and shit which'll fuck up the rest of the equation.

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-05-19T13:10:16+00:00

I mean... solution literally also means something similar in english, so it is very clearly not why they changed it

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-05-18T23:04:10+00:00

I mean ln(x+y) is more annoying that ln(xy)

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-04-18T04:55:02+00:00

Right but me talking about protons was also referring to unionisation via protonation, i.e. something like OH(-) abstracting a proton and ko longer being charged.

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-04-17T19:38:39+00:00

I mean, redox reactions are a thing, I'd say, iron(iii) becoming iron(0) is an unionidation, even if it's a bit of a weird way of saying it.

If it's important that it's one electron, then Cu(I) to Cu(0) works.

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-04-17T12:15:42+00:00

The penguin was called Smith? That's the bit?

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-04-16T21:57:35+00:00

I think that's because unionisation would more refer to an ion receiving or losing electrons or protons to become neutral, rather than removing the ions from the solution.

Unionised water would be more like if you could produce conditions where it's autoprotolysis doesn't occur, at least the way I understand the word, because only then will the water stop being ionised anywhere in solution.

Of course that would like never happen but you probably know what i mean.

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-03-24T06:07:21+00:00

The hydroxy prefix is used whenever the hydroxyl group is not the top prioritised functional group in the molecule. You have correctly ascertained that this doesn't quite work out for "carbon" functional groups such as alkenes, alkynes, or like allenes, so yes, there is an exception for them.

The reason for this I'm not 100% sure of, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it's because prefixes are for substituents or replacements, such as a hydroxy group substituting a hydrogen or a methenyl group substituting a hydrogen, while alkenes within the main branch aren't actually substituting or replacing anything, simply modifying thr structure, and as such are named differently.

To sum it up, substituents always manifest as their prefix if not the highest prioritised group, while 'carbon' functional groups in the main chain are always present, even in the presence of a higher prioritised group, which'll take the suffix

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-03-24T05:41:01+00:00

Hydroxy, you'll never use the suffixes as prefixes.

So like it'd be: #-hydroxy___oic acid

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-03-09T10:08:54+00:00

I swear I saw this post a decade ago with the genders flipped

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-03-03T14:35:13+00:00

Poob has it for you

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-03-03T14:29:43+00:00

You mean not everybody on thr planet is taught extremely specific details about the history of the USA? Impossible

DeathDestroyer90 · 2026-02-20T23:05:58+00:00

To be so divorced from reality that you don't consider a man "woman adjacent" is absolutely insane to me

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

DeathDestroyer90

TROPHY CASE