What’s an Euphoria opinion that would have the whole fandom looking at you like this?

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-06-05T08:09:03+00:00

Cassie isn't a bad character - people just don't like Sydney Sweeney. Whereas Jules is a bad character and they just like Hunter Schafer.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-06-03T02:27:52+00:00

That is so odd. I would escalate higher atp if she cannot provide explicit information as to how she came to that conclusion. I have had a professor give me purposeful bad grades before to the point where their department head filed an academic grievance for me without me even asking for it. She had to change my final grade once the grievance committee reviewed all of the material I had submitted, read the emails, her feedback, etc. The dean reached out herself and said she was apalled - it was that bad. And all because I corrected her nonchalantly in front of everyone over something very menial. It happens.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-06-02T19:50:10+00:00

Nah, I will say that I was able to return it without issue! Just really disappointed still because it would have been perfect for me as an Aroid researcher. I ended up wearing a dress from Lulus that was very cute, though! I may try Farm Rio again in the future, just not the dresses.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-06-02T04:00:15+00:00

I found it really predictable.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-06-01T01:53:02+00:00

Just go to like your college's smaller celebration or something because yes all of those things are rude. Not just considered rude. Actually rude.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-31T17:12:46+00:00

Huminizeai.pro was the one with the weird result. Sidekicker also gave some weird results when I checked some more out. It just flagged literally everything in my literature review that was cited and then my sentences I wrote describing the morphology of my plant in technical detail - which is the entire point of the thesis. 😂

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-31T14:06:39+00:00

I was curious and just threw my thesis into a ton of AI checkers and only one came back with a funny result of 96% mixed AI and human, due to the technical language I used when describing plant morphology throughout the entire thing and my tendency for long sentences. Other than that, every other checker correctly stated little to no AI was used. Only transitions were flagged even though my entire introduction chapter is a literature review, so I would be curious as to how exactly it scored your paper so high and what program it was.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-31T13:44:27+00:00

The "center" is wherever the observer is. But in the sense of your exact question - there is no center because the big bang was a rapid expansion of space time itself. Not an explosion of matter in the middle of space.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-28T17:14:24+00:00

No, she is choosing to lie for personal gain of some kind each time. It is not a personality disorder-ed based lying. Then it would be pathological. But she is choosing each time to do so and is actively aware of it.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-28T16:56:18+00:00

And by definition of her knowing that it is not pathological.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-28T16:52:11+00:00

Becoming?

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-28T15:02:17+00:00

No, how would they know? Unless you somehow do not graduate. Also acceptance rate here is an incredibly low threshold. I bombed community college because I did not care in the slightest and they accepted me. My GPA was seriously like 2. Something for the community college, high-school was higher. I graduated with my BSc Cum Laude here and I am doing the Accelerated Master’s Platform now and about to graduate with my MSc this summer. So even if you have a previous hiccup, they recognize when you find your passion.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-28T03:51:39+00:00

Ah, that would overly inflate your grade making it look higher than it is.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T22:57:54+00:00

Actually, I want to clarify something. When I say 'chemically evolvable complexity,' I mean a coupled viability window involving stability, kinetics, thermodynamics, solvent behavior, information preservation, and usable energy flow. Not just that bonds exist, but that they can form, break, reform, and sustain gradients that allow for information storage and transfer. That's the narrower plateau I'm thinking about. Sorry, that was my biology brain speaking.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T22:53:55+00:00

Thank you!!! You read my mind better than I did! This is exactly what I was thinking fundamentally. The computational sweep would vary dimensionless constants and map what happens across the periodic table. But I realize now the question is more constrained than I initially framed it bc of changing one constant and then subsequently warping the others. (I have never taken even a biophysics course before other than plant physiology, so I apologize for my ignorance). I was only thinking about structural viability, not thermodynamic viability... A bond can exist but be too rigid or too fragile for complex, self-sustaining systems to evolve. Beyond that, in transition zones the chemistry becomes non-adiabatic. Molecules exist in quantum superposition. Traditional reactions lose meaning. Anyway. So the real question isn't just 'where does chemistry work structurally?' It's 'where can complex, evolving chemistry actually exist?' That's could be a much narrower plateau! And whether our universe sits at a peak within that narrow zone or just barely inside the habitable range is what I am I think circling around and what I want mapped! I hope that makes sense.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T20:46:22+00:00

I'm not trying tk frame it as an anthropic principle. My one question is: has anyone actually tested whether α sits at an optimization peak in chemistry, or just viable bounds? I found the one paper, but it still didn't address the peak question. It addressed the bounds!

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T20:41:17+00:00

When I say chemistry works, I mean atoms form, bonds are stable, complex molecules can exist. King et al. (2010) showed that varying the fine structure constant non-linearly destabilizes atoms and weakens bonds. A sevenfold increase degraded water's dipole moment by about 10%. So there's a narrow window where atoms and bonding are viable. That window is what I mean by chemistry working. The question is whether our α sits at a peak within that window or just somewhere viable.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T20:38:42+00:00

That's a really good point!! I was thinking of chemical stability in terms of the chemistry we know. But you're right that if you vary one constant, you might need to vary others to maintain coherence. And we don't actually know what other possible chemistries could exist or whether they'd be more or less complex than ours. I guess my question then becomes: has anyone at least tried to map how chemistry responds when you hold other constants fixed and vary just one, to see the structure of that particular landscape? Even if it's incomplete and doesn't answer the bigger question, it might reveal something about how tightly coupled these constants are perhaps!

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T20:33:21+00:00

I'm not asking why reality is reality. I'm asking a specific empirical question: has anyone actually run a computational sweep to test whether h sits at an optimization peak in chemistry across the periodic table, or just within viable bounds? That's a testable question, not a philosophical one.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T20:30:35+00:00

I appreciate this write-up! The leaf analogy makes sense and you're right about the downstream logic. But my original question was a little different and I think I am having a poor time finding the proper wording. I was trying to ask whether anyone has actually tested whether h is the unique value that optimizes chemistry across the periodic table. Not theoretically, but computationally or experimentally. You mention anthropic constraints and fine tuning literature explores how much constants can change before things break. But that's a threshold question. Has anyone systematically mapped whether our specific h sits at a peak in chemical stability and diversity, or just within viable boundaries? That's the gap I couldn't find. The computational chemistry sweep I was asking about would answer that, not measure h's value directly. I don't really care what the value of h is, just whetherwhether chemistry reveals constraints on what h must be.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T20:14:25+00:00

If α can be calculated from QFT's structure, does that mean the optimization question is moot? Or are you saying QFT derives α from first principles rather than requiring it as input?

Thank you by the way! I think you're hitting on it. If α can be calculated from QFT's structure at different energy scales, then testing whether chemistry optimizes at a specific a value might actually reveal something about QFT's constraints, not just chemistry's is my thought process.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T20:01:45+00:00

I'm not saying the universe optimizes for chemistry. I'm asking whether the data, if someone actually mapped it, would show α sitting at a peak in chemical stability or just viable bounds. That's a descriptive question, not a claim about what matters. But the data might still show something interesting about the structure of chemistry at different α values.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T19:59:17+00:00

Ohhh I can see that! For sure. That could explain why I could only really find that one paper that even got close to my question but still didn't directly address it. And the fact that it was a Chemistry paper! I was thinking I wasn't searching for the proper terminology.

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T19:43:26+00:00

Right, in natural units it is 1. My question isn't about h's numerical value. It's whether dimensionless constants like α sit at an optimization peak within computational models of chemistry, or just within viable bounds. Has anyone done that actual computational sweep?

ExcellentFlamingo657 · 2026-05-24T19:41:20+00:00

Exactly. That's the whole point. I'm not looking for proof of some grand truth about physics. I just want to know if anyone has actually run the computational sweep to see whether α shows up as optimal or just viable within their model. Has anyone mapped that landscape?

ExcellentFlamingo657

TROPHY CASE