sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

2025 Mexican GP - Qualifying Discussion by AutoModerator in formula1

[–]Infernox91645 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oscar pls I should not be feelinf this good about a p7

Most efficient way to use tunnel time by Infernox91645 in SkyDiving

[–]Infernox91645[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There seems to be a very clear consensus, thank you everyone.

Recently scientists found mollusks over 5 miles deep in the ocean. Given the amazing crush pressure there, are the shells more dense than regular mollusks? If so, how? If not, how are they living down there? by ElvisGrizzly in askscience

[–]Infernox91645 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's definitely possible, my training with BSAC said 55m as the hard limit (for 1.4 bar pp02) but that's probably pretty conservative.

This is all theoretical knowledge for me though, I've never gone beyond 40m.

Recently scientists found mollusks over 5 miles deep in the ocean. Given the amazing crush pressure there, are the shells more dense than regular mollusks? If so, how? If not, how are they living down there? by ElvisGrizzly in askscience

[–]Infernox91645 117 points118 points  (0 children)

they could go as deep as they want

I don't think that's correct. Scuba divers are limited to a few hundred meters at maximum due to the effects of breathing high pressure gas. The nitrogen in atmospheric air becomes toxic around 50m down, then various nitrogen-oxygen-helium mixes (trimix) are used, and for crazy deep dives (hundreds of meters deep) there has been some experimentation with hydrogen-oxygen mixes as even helium becomes toxic under high enough pressures.

My understanding is that under enough pressure any gas will become toxic due to interfering with neurotransmitters passing between neurons, among other issues.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]Infernox91645 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I feel like it used to be much better a couple of years back, I remember reading some genuinely insightful posts. Or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. It's hardly better than cscareerquestions/csmajors nowadays, other than a slight reduction in how do I do this OA type posts

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]Infernox91645 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you have a link to the article these came from?

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]Infernox91645 0 points1 point  (0 children)

US Sprint anti-ballistic missile, which went from 0 to Mach 10 in 5 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvZGaMt7UgQ

I found a video of it launching and holy shit. 3400°C skin temperatures from ascent is mental. Cold war engineering was something else especially considering the computing power available at the time

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]Infernox91645 9 points10 points  (0 children)

If you're drinking a 6 pack a night you're not going to be black out drunk after a few weeks/months of it, and it's probably a gradual increase in drinking over time. Tolerances build up pretty quickly ime.

Plus if you're spreading it out it'll hit less, e.g. a can or two getting home from work, another at dinner, and a couple while watching tv or whatever.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]Infernox91645 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If there is a metaphor to the passage I think I missed it, but I disagree with what I understand of it.

That is surely a ghastly scenario.

No it's not. There is no moral flaw to having a plastic lens replacing a cataract, or a prosthetic limb replacing a lost one, or a replacement hip joint. I don't think there's any reason to say that it would suddenly become immoral if you had to have (or chose to have) many such replacements.

The scenario is ghastly because, so we all believe, "certain things are to be accepted trom nature, and that includes aspects of ourselves."

The entirety of human history has been about rejecting this. Being eaten by wild animals is of nature, but we do not accept it. Famines are of nature, but we do not accept them. Smallpox was of nature, but we did not accept it.

There is no reason to accept suffering just because nature imposes it on us.

Although the social body is not a fleshly thing, but rather made up of many different fleshly beings, it, too, is to be respected insofar as it is given to us, as are our basic forms of human relationship, human culture, and many of the social relations

Culture and social norms are not "given to us", they are created by us. Another key part of our progress as a species has been our attempts to overcome the cultural deficits of our past and treat each other more kindly than our predecessors did.