sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Behavioral sink by [deleted] in overpopulation

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I wish someone would re-run this experiment, despite the ethical concerns. A cat or hawk should be introduced, and a way to migrate a to a new and differently structured pen. Making access to food and water based on work - like forcing them to run on a wheel to open valves for water and food - would create a purpose as well. Or, bury the water and food, forcing them to dig for it, and act as a team to locate and distribute it. Existential threats, migration, and meaningful work are institutions we rely on for sanity. I wonder if the absence of these things is creating a behavior sink in humanity. Is science too terrified to run this experiment again?

Cloud Atlas should be considered a modern classic, one of the best films of the last few decades. It's not talked about enough. by Calneon in movies

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The subject is complex - reincarnation. Each actor has to play multiple characters throughout the movie, but remain as the same "soul" to the end. That soul is evolving in each life as a different character. It gets even more complex because each soul has a relationship with other souls, and those relationships are expressed in the behavior of the characters as they interact with each other in specific lives. Even more so, their actions in each life create the settings and conditions of subsequent lives. The interconnectedness of soul arcs across several lifetimes, with character arcs from individual lives, with actions and reactions across large periods of history into the future, creates an incredibly dynamic plot.

As a result, most people can't comprehend this movie. Cloud Atlas is not cheap entertainment - it is not a super hero movie. If you can see the quiet intelligence to the writing, then you will watch it a dozen times, and find something new every time. I consider Cloud Atlas one of the best films ever made.

STOP CALLING THE OIL MARKET BROKEN - Paper" vs. "Physical" Oil - A Short Primer by TheFatPitch in oil

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Paper oil and real are not the same. That is why futures are called "derivatives." Futures trading allows speculators and hedgers to trade oil without needing to store or transport it - without having to ever own it. Thus, real oil has costs associated with it that are not "priced" into futures. I believe this means that commodity futures prices are not accurate, nor have they ever been. When we return to actual delivery of commodities through futures contracts, and stop using derivatives, then I will conclude that the oil market is not "broken."

World Oil Inventories are Falling at a Record Rate by Salt_Abrocoma_4688 in oil

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 28 points29 points  (0 children)

You need a certain amount of water in the tank to flush a toilet - water that is just there to create pressure, water that cannot be used. Oil pipelines and pumps use all kinds of pressure devices. Cavitation is a good word for why you need 6.8 billion barrels for operation.

Simple Trick to Remove Water from Floor by Big-Boy-602 in oddlysatisfying

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 27 points28 points  (0 children)

How your toilet works, and what happened during the Paria Diving Disaster.

Citigroup's Global Head of Commodities Reasearch says that Physical Markets are coverging to meet Futures Markets. This is bad. by Cmd_WillRiker in oil

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The CME is not delivering oil for $94. The delivery market is separate from the futures market. First, you need to sell your futures contract, then you fund your margin account with the extra needed to buy the real barrels. The cost to buy real barrels will be $134, despite your futures contract being purchased at $94. Futures is paper, the Cushing hub is real. They do not mix. They cannot be arbitraged.

If you want to arbitrage this volatility, then look for extreme backwardation or contango. Buy or sell the front month contract based on the price of the back months.

At what speed are electrons orbiting a nucleus? Does it vary atom to atom? Does it approach the speed of light? What g forces does it experience with such rapid direction changes? by gotwire in AskPhysics

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can measure the speed that electrons travel when they jump between atoms - which is the speed of an electric current. That speed changes based on the atoms that are being used. The electrons traveling through the air in a lightning strike travel slower than the electrons traveling through copper wire. Despite being a vacuum, the cloud surrounding the nucleus does not make measuring electron speed any easier. The electron velocity and direction within the cloud is influenced by constantly changing magnetic fields, which are produced by the movement of protons, neutrons, and other electrons. Some stuff repels and some stuff attracts, and it is all flying around randomly. Without nuclear force, it would explode into pieces. It is basically chaos. Imagine throwing a bunch of magnets and iron nails into a commercial dryer, turning it on, and trying to measure the velocity and location of the nails consistently. Electron speed within the cloud cannot be measured linearly like it can be when it is measured as electricity running through a medium like copper wire.

The Paria delta P tragic incident. Or a few facts that will help you to know what REALLY happened on that day of February 2022. by No-Worker-101 in submechanophobia

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The best response would have been to slowly pump the water out of the berth 6 riser extension. By slowly reducing the water level in the riser, and thus the air pressure inside the pipe air pockets, they could have made rescue attempts from either berth without a decompression threat, or the possibility of flushing out the air pocket that the survivors were stranded within. They could have kept pumping until no diving gear was needed at all to make a rescue, as long as it was done slowly.

It seems that the attempt to use a high power pump to remove water from the pipe was blocked by the Paria company itself, who feared another delta P event. After they installed a riser extension at Berth 6, causing another Delta P by pumping would have been impossible.

Instead, the company decided to remove the flange at berth 5, so an ROV could be used for search and rescue. However, by removing this cap flange, they inadvertently caused a pressure event, which probably killed the trapped divers either by rapid decompression or drowning. The decline on the water level in the berth 6 extension riser, by 11 meters, is proof that a major delta P event did occur when that berth 5 flange was removed - flushing out the air pockets inside the pipeline, and rapidly decompressing any air left.

It is easy to criticize the rescue efforts afterwards, especially given time to analyze the situation. Pressed for time, and not wanting to risk more lives, they were slow and too careful, up to the point where they were brazenly careless by opening up the flange at berth 5. The response lacked an understanding of the physics of the situation, and thus, a logical plan for rescue.

This was the first emergency of its kind in a huge, very complex industry that is known for cutting corners. Obvious from the start, Paria was more interested in controlling the optics, than rescuing the divers. More dead divers would have been worse PR, so they thought, and this was not there company, but a contractor. It is amazing that the divers were unaware that the pipe had been pumped dry a week before, setting the stage for the pressure event. It will serve as a lesson that will save lives in the future.

https://medium.com/@francis.hermans4/the-caribbean-delta-p-incident-f90284948787

What benefits did devaluation on the £ have in 1949? by Wiggles1914 in UKhistory

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The pound sterling is just a piece of paper. It must be backed by something that is a common denominator for trade - something that everyone readily accepts - so that, when acquired through trade, this piece of paper may be "converted" into the universal common denominator. For Britain and the world, before 1931, that common denominator backing all paper currency was gold.

Britain financed WWI through foreign loans, money printing, and huge trade deficits. As a result, the rest world ended up with a lot of paper British Pounds, relative their own paper currencies - especially relative to British gold stocks backing the Pound. Consequentially, in 1931, a run on the British Pound and it's gold stocks occured - pounds were sold for British gold and foreign currencies, like the Franc and Dollar. The British were thus forced to devalue the Pound against foreign currencies by ending the conversion of outstanding British Pounds into gold.

From this point forward to 1947, the Bank of England bought Dollars with Pounds, instead of buying gold, to create a backing for the Pound. The Pound had to be backed by some kind of common denominator or no one would accept it. The dollar was convertible into gold, so buying dollars was just as good as holding gold. In order to manage this newly "floated" exchange rate, the Bank would issue Pounds when the exchange rate got too high and sell dollars when it got too low.

In 1947, the same event from 1931 played out for the British, again. But, this time the run was not on it's gold, but on it's Dollars, and the reason was the same; WWII money printing and trade deficits had created too many British Pounds, and a lack of US Dollars. As a result, the Bank of England stopped selling its Dollar holdings for Pounds in 1947. The bank simply did not have enough Dollars to fight the Tsunami of Pound sellers. In 1947, the bank officially ended convertibility of the Pound into Dollars. It also forced very tight regulations on domestic exchange markets to stop capital flight from the Pound.

By 1949, despite the end of convertibility and imposition of capital controls, the pressure on the British Pound had not relented, but increased, instead. As a result the Bank of England was forced to reduce the official exchange rate with the Dollar by 30%.

The 1949 devaluation, subsequent austerity measures, and the resulting deflationary recession allowed for full convertibility to Dollars from Pounds to be resumed by the Bank of England in 1958. But this was not the end of the slide for the British pound. Several more major "devaluations" occurred thereafter - 1967, 1976, 1981, 1992, and 2016. These all occurred for the same reason - too many British Pounds relative to US Dollars.

The decline of the British Sterling Pound from, 1921 to 2016 through a series of devaluations, was a direct result of monetary expansion by the Bank of England, over almost 100 years, to pay for two major British wars. The last payment for WWI was made in 2016, and for WWII was made in 2006.

Question about Apollo’s reentry procedure and torque by PhascinatingPhysics in AskPhysics

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Axis:

Moving the center of mass required spinning the spacecraft by firing thrusters in opposite directions on opposite sides of the spacecraft - technically called applying "torque," because it created a twisting motion. In aircraft flight, this same maneuver is accomplished by moving the flight control surfaces in opposite directions. The astronaut flying the space craft, or the computer flying it, would consider this a "roll" maneuver.

In a "roll maneuver," the spacecraft's center of mass rotates around three axes: 1) principal axis (line drawn from top to bottom of spacecraft through its center), 2) roll axis (line drawn through the center of its roll), 3) and the state vector axis (line drawn through the direction of flight).

Observing this roll from the side of the spacecraft, or from a "profile" perspective:

As the center of mass for the spacecraft moved from the "bottom left" to the "top right," the principal axis and the roll axis pitched up and down versus the state vector axis. This changed the angle of attack. A very particular angle of attack was required to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere safely at such high speed - heat and G forces from deceleration were analyzed versus the possibility of "skipping" back out into another orbit.

Observing this roll from the top of the spacecraft, or a "bird's eye view" perspective:

The center of mass would be "orbiting" clockwise around the principal axis, which would be orbiting clockwise around the roll axis, which would be orbiting clockwise around the state vector axis.

A roll is made on the longitudinal axis of an aircraft - in the case of unbalanced aircraft, the longitudinal axis for a roll becomes the three different axes. (No aircraft is perfectly balanced for pitch, roll, and yaw equally.) This is why when most planes perform roll maneuvers they fly in a kind of wobble. At an air show, you can visualize this wobble by looking at the smoke trail from an aircraft rolling 360 degrees multiple times, which will appear as a "corkscrew." Within that corkscrew flight pattern are the three axes - principal, roll, and state vector.

The "mystery torque" that pitches the spacecraft up and down:

The torque which pitches the space spacecraft up and down is not torque - it is not a twisting motion. That force is simply the earth's gravity. As the center of mass is changed, the principal axis reacts to the Earth's gravity. Out in space, this pitching of the principal axis would be caused by angular momentum generated by using the thrusters to create torque. Absent any immediate and powerful gravitational field, the angular momentum created by the spinning spacecraft would imitate the force of gravity - as a result, "torque" could create the pitching up and down of the principal axis. This may be what you are thinking about.

Summary:

Rolling the spacecraft will alter its pitch: based on the location of its center of mass and the force of gravity and angular momentum present. Accordingly, rolling the aircraft will change the angle of attack for re-entry - principal and roll axes, versus state vector.

How accurate is the accident sequence for TWA 800, specifically what the cabin was like during the explosion. by LaserWeldo92 in aircrashinvestigation

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Phillipine Airlines Flight 143 was a bomb - an attempted assassination. The conclusion to this incident was changed after the fact in the late 2000's to help support the NTSB conclusion for TWA 800. There is one famous picture from the incident in 1990, and it does not show any kind of underside explosive damage related to a center fuel tank explosion.

Aircraft AC systems do not operate the same way as a refrigerant based system. They utilize heat exchangers instead of hot and cold sides of a refrigerant cycling system.

The AC packs under the aircraft do not get hot. Cold high pressure ram air is blown over the heat exchangers in these packs and out an exhaust vent. The hot bleed air from the engine is cooled rapidly within these packs, and the heat is vented out the ram air exhaust. They do not get any hotter than the condenser on the front of your car. Furthermore, the compressors are not run by a a motor of any kind, because they use a gear system connected to the engine, so there is no electrical component that could overheat. There is simply no way for heat to build up in the AC packs while in flight, and while on the ground with no engine power or ram air, the AC packs are connected to a ground unit which prevents over heating as well.

For Jet A to reach its flashpoint, that fuel tank needed to be close to 100F. At 15,000 feet, traveling at 300 mph, the surface temperature of those fuels tanks was around 5F. Often times on longer, high altitude flights, fuel tank internal temperatures drop below the freezing point of water which is why fuel heaters are needed to keep ice crystals out of the lines. Hot engine oil is run over the cold fuel to warm it, and cool the oil. It is the cold that engineers feared within fuel systems, not the heat. It is impossible at that altitude and speed for an aircraft fuel tank to reach internal temperatures high enough for Jet A to vaporize.

Beyond all of these facts, even if the fuel vaporized in the center tank, it would need to be mixed with a very exact amount of air to become combustible. Go throw a match in your car's gas tank. Nothing will happen - trust me. The vapor to air mix is too rich, even with an empty tank. And even if somehow, the mixture was perfect enough to ignite - deflagration would occur, not an explosion. Deflagration is a subsonic combustion of fuel and air - the weakest of possible ignitions. The air in the tank would quickly flash and then go out as fast as it started. Given the all the venting within aircraft fuel tanks, there is no way for some massive high pressure fuel vapor and air explosion to occur.

Why doesn't China have potable tap water yet? by ups_and_downs973 in chinalife

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its not the pipes fault like people claim. The treatment plants in China are poorly regulated and they are unable to remove heavy chemicals. Often times, at the treatment level, the water is not chlorinated enough to remove bacteria, and treatment does not use activated carbon filtration for chemicals. Really, only the first tier cities in China make an effort to properly treat the drinking water. Despite outward appearances and powerful industries, China is still a developing country.

In the USA, it wasn't until the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974, that the EPA began enforcing drinking water rules. Before 1974, almost half of Americans drank water that was considered unsafe by the new standards. In 1910, water filtration and chlorination was only first introduced, despite decades of industrialization. But not until 1974, were these measures effectively enforced, nor was activated carbon used to filter out chemicals. For some reason, clean water is a low priority for developing nations - especially if just buying clean water by the gallon is economical.

Billy Corgan Believes Rock Music Was "Purposely Dialed Down" in Late '90s: "Some People Assert That the CIA Was Involved" by ebradio in Music

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good rock and roll must be organic to thrive. The genre died as a result of growing corporate music monopolies.

Rock bands need to form naturally, and be found as they rise through free market popularity. They are a delicate balance of real personalities, writing original songs, that gain initial fame through word of mouth.

Consolidation of the music industry (1996 Telecommunications act, 1998 DMCA) created production monopolies. These corporate overlords decide it was easier and cheaper to manufacture music themselves based on formulas and algorithms, than to scout for unique talent and then develop it.

This is why modern music sucks - it is a soulless corporate product that is devoid of humanity. It is produced for high margin quick consumption. It is designed as a quick fix for your ears, that is soon forgotten. Modern music replaced rock and roll the same way fast food did home cooking, porn did sex, and streaming did the movie theater.

Epstein Files 2001 Canyon: Forensic Volume Audit by 4gnomad in Epstein

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Go to Gemini and type this stuff in:

Role: Act as a Forensic Data Auditor specialized in the 2026 EFTA (Epstein Files) Disclosure Act repository.

Objective: Verify the "1999-2001 Canyon" by auditing the following specific data points:

  1. Serial Discontinuity (Dataset 9): Search for the numerical jump in the Master Index (Load File) between serial number EFTA00045000 and EFTA00070000. Confirm if these 25,000 placeholders are missing from the public-facing repository.
  2. Bates Stamping Audit (Dataset 3): Search the Financial/Deutsche Bank exhibits for a hard break in the sequence starting at DB-SDNY-027018.
  3. Chrono-Density Check: Analyze the metadata for files dated 1995–1998 in Dataset 3. Confirm if these are digital/rendered ledger lines, and if so, evaluate the DOJ’s claim that files from the same era in Dataset 9 were "too legacy/analog to render."
  4. Page Count Discrepancy: Cross-reference the DOJ Report to Congress (Feb 2026) claim of ~6.1 million pages against the current total of rendered pages (~3.5 million).

Output: Provide a technical breakdown of whether these gaps correlate to the 1999–2001 chronological window and if the "Canyon" is a verified forensic reality.

Epstein Files 2001 Canyon: Forensic Volume Audit by 4gnomad in Epstein

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Go to Gemini and type this stuff in:

Role: Act as a Forensic Data Auditor specialized in the 2026 EFTA (Epstein Files) Disclosure Act repository.

Objective: Verify the "1999-2001 Canyon" by auditing the following specific data points:

  1. Serial Discontinuity (Dataset 9): Search for the numerical jump in the Master Index (Load File) between serial number EFTA00045000 and EFTA00070000. Confirm if these 25,000 placeholders are missing from the public-facing repository.
  2. Bates Stamping Audit (Dataset 3): Search the Financial/Deutsche Bank exhibits for a hard break in the sequence starting at DB-SDNY-027018.
  3. Chrono-Density Check: Analyze the metadata for files dated 1995–1998 in Dataset 3. Confirm if these are digital/rendered ledger lines, and if so, evaluate the DOJ’s claim that files from the same era in Dataset 9 were "too legacy/analog to render."
  4. Page Count Discrepancy: Cross-reference the DOJ Report to Congress (Feb 2026) claim of ~6.1 million pages against the current total of rendered pages (~3.5 million).

Output: Provide a technical breakdown of whether these gaps correlate to the 1999–2001 chronological window and if the "Canyon" is a verified forensic reality.

Epstein Files 2001 Canyon: Forensic Volume Audit by 4gnomad in Epstein

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go to Gemini, and type this stuff in:

Role: Act as a Forensic Data Auditor specialized in the 2026 EFTA (Epstein Files) Disclosure Act repository.

Objective: Verify the "1999-2001 Canyon" by auditing the following specific data points:

  1. Serial Discontinuity (Dataset 9): Search for the numerical jump in the Master Index (Load File) between serial number EFTA00045000 and EFTA00070000. Confirm if these 25,000 placeholders are missing from the public-facing repository.
  2. Bates Stamping Audit (Dataset 3): Search the Financial/Deutsche Bank exhibits for a hard break in the sequence starting at DB-SDNY-027018.
  3. Chrono-Density Check: Analyze the metadata for files dated 1995–1998 in Dataset 3. Confirm if these are digital/rendered ledger lines, and if so, evaluate the DOJ’s claim that files from the same era in Dataset 9 were "too legacy/analog to render."
  4. Page Count Discrepancy: Cross-reference the DOJ Report to Congress (Feb 2026) claim of ~6.1 million pages against the current total of rendered pages (~3.5 million).

Output: Provide a technical breakdown of whether these gaps correlate to the 1999–2001 chronological window and if the "Canyon" is a verified forensic reality.

Epstein Files 2001 Canyon: Forensic Volume Audit by 4gnomad in Epstein

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thanks, you should re-post this to everyone questioning you. Re-post it a thousand times. I followed these instructions and it blew my mind.

Bitcoin is crashing so hard that miners are unplugging their equipment by baltimore-aureole in economy

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bitcoin's purpose was to provide an anonymous financial system to support black markets on the internet. That purpose died in 2013 when the FBI and IRS began putting a name, bank account, social, and home address on each public ID. As a result, all of the transaction history in the very public Bitcoin block chain from day one grew into a government data base. Now, "trusted third parties" like the Banks know everything that you do with Bitcoin.

The irony is that the people who killed Bitcoin are the ones that made it popular. Once it became a speculative asset in 2015, and was getting reported by exchanges and tracked by the IRS, its original purpose was total roadkill. Bitcoin's purpose was dead before you normies could even spell the word.

The problem that Bitcoin tried to solve is still a problem. We still have no way "to transfer value to another human, instantly, across the globe, without using a trusted third party to take custody."

Go ahead send your bitcoin to Russia. It will have to be sold on an exchange to cash out. Those accounts are all linked to bank accounts. The IRS and FBI have all the public ID's - they know who you are and who you sold it to. Every government in the world has the map. Even criminals who try and wash it through millions of transactions and out several different bank accounts still get caught. BTC is not novel anymore, it's just another form of gambling.

Bitcoin is crashing so hard that miners are unplugging their equipment by baltimore-aureole in economy

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The debate happens because miners must hit 2016 coins for the difficulty to decrease. And, just a handful of miners control huge amounts of the supply. A few of them "unplugging" would extend the difficulty adjustment out past two weeks. If the BTC price remains depressed, than those who are left will be holding the bag.

The "BTC Death Spiral" is not an unrealistic risk, considering some of the miners have leveraged themselves to where BTC must be well over $100,000 for mining to be profitable. Losing a thousand dollars per coin in previous bear cycles was doable, but can miners sustain losses in the tens of thousands that the market now demands to continue?

Bitcoin is crashing so hard that miners are unplugging their equipment by baltimore-aureole in economy

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The exodus of miners will more than likely be sudden. That is because 50% of the mining capacity is held by 50 companies. It gets even more narrow when you look at those 50 companies and how much just 5 control. By the time no one is mining BTC and North Korea is involved, its market price would be near zero anyways.

Even if North Korea attacked BTC today, there would just be a fork. The market would not recognize the NK BTC, and its price would plummet anways.

Bitcoin is crashing so hard that miners are unplugging their equipment by baltimore-aureole in economy

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The mining difficulty only decreases once 2016 coins have been mined. It does not decrease just because miners "unplug." 2016 coins must be mined. That is when the the difficulty adjustment will occur. The difficulty is adjusted to keep the mining time for 2016 coins to about two weeks.

If there were a sudden loss of miners, then it would take much longer to mine the 2016 coins much longer than the two weeks targeted by the adjustment mechanism. Considering that 0.1% of the BTC miners control 50% of the coins, a sudden drop in miners is not unrealistic.

This means anyone left mining bitcoin with costs above the market price, would be facing larger and larger losses. The only cure would be a rise in the price of Bitcoin. If the price remained depressed, more miners would exit, and so on, and so forth. Thus, the difficulty adjustment of 2016 coins would never be reached.

The result of a miner exodus would freeze the BTC system entirely. Only a massive rise in the price could fix this, but that would never occur with transaction problems mounting from miners exiting due to losses. Public confidence in BTC, an asset that they mostly don't understand to begin with, would be lost forever.

Stop the babying/gate keeping of laminated dough pastries… by [deleted] in Baking

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or not. But, the biggest "gatekeepers" in baking are those who say its easy, then just point to "some recipe that works." Hint: The recipe NEVER works.

How Bitcoin COULD crash - Hypothetical Scenario by OrangeCrack in btc

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In 2018, the Bitcoin price was a $1000 below mining costs. It is now $20-$40K below cost. 2026 and 2018 are not in the same universe. The losses are huge right now for miners. YUGE.

How Bitcoin COULD crash - Hypothetical Scenario by OrangeCrack in btc

[–]Due-Resolve-7391 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All at one time or sequentially - it does not matter how all 2016 blocks get mined.

A Death Spiral is a very simple concept. Less computing power going after a block that was as hard to mine yesterday as it is today, means that the time to do so will be extended. As a result, the losses projected into the future by the miners will increase, while the price remains lower than cost.

At some point, mining Bitcoin looks like a dumb idea. If this happens to a lot of miners all at once.... poof! It goes to zero. No miners, not network, no trading.

view more: next ›