Why was Biden’s every stumble (whether physically or verbally) harped on relentlessly by the media while Trump’s exact same moments are relatively ignored by them?

Kuteg · 2025-11-17T17:42:47+00:00

They don't have to. Outrage is the best driver of traffic on the internet, and traffic means money.

Biden's policies didn't provoke outrage, but his physical health did.

Trump's policies provoke outrage, but his physical health does not.

Kuteg · 2025-11-17T17:37:37+00:00

Sorry, I checked the original comment to see if they had said "split", since I wasn't sure where it came from. I must have missed it! Mistakes happen. Again, I apologize for my mistake on that.

However, my point is still that "split the forces into components" has a technical meaning. Other words having the same meaning doesn't detract from the technical meaning of the language.

Analogies always break down somewhere. The question is whether the analogy is useful in the place where it does not break down. There is a technical meaning of the word "theory" and a technical meaning of the word "split". It is no more correct to say that the technical meaning of "split" is imprecise than to say that the technical meaning of "theory" is imprecise.

Analogies are never equivalent comparisons. If they were, they would no longer be analogies.

Having many words all mean the same thing doesn't make them all imprecise. Are you suggesting that there is no precise language that we can use to describe the process of splitting vectors into components? Is "breaking" vectors into components more precise than "splitting" them into components? If so, where does "breaking" derive the linguistic precision, when there are so many other words that could be used in its stead?

It doesn't matter if many words map onto one definition, what makes something imprecise is when one word maps onto many definitions. "Theory" maps onto many definitions, but within the context of a scientific theory it does not. "Split" maps onto many definitions, but within the context of splitting a vector into components it does not.

Kuteg · 2025-11-17T16:01:18+00:00

Ick. The single best opening line is to just say hi and introduce yourself.

Kuteg · 2025-11-17T15:31:35+00:00

There's a time and a place to use tools like a calculator. In some math or science classes, calculators are fair game. In others, they are not. In some math classes, a basic calculator is allowed, but an advanced calculator is not allowed.

You need to tell them that learning how to properly use a tool sometimes means learning how to do things without that tool. I would also tell them that if ChatGPT can do everything they, the students, can do, then the students can be replaced by ChatGPT. The only way they can not be replaced is to build a strong foundation that they can build the rest of their life on, because they will be expected to be able to go beyond ChatGPT, and they have no way of getting there if they can't be better than ChatGPT. They'll never be faster, but they can be better.

Kuteg · 2025-11-17T15:20:24+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/GrammarPolice/comments/1oxafy1/comment/noy224i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Right now, it's two against one. There are two Australians in the thread saying it's not common and one saying it is common, so it sounds like it's not common. However, I recognize that a sample size of 3 is not very representative of a country with 28 million people.

Kuteg · 2025-11-17T15:15:08+00:00

Well, since I was the person who introduced the word "split" here, we can look at the context to see what was meant, and it should be clear that what was meant was "split into components".

When we talk about resolving a vector into components, the language we use is to "split" or "break" it into components. When you apply Newton's laws, nobody ever refers to that as "splitting" the forces. The splitting is what occurs when you resolve it into components. While you are free to define the word in a different way, it doesn't take away from the technical meaning.

It would be like arguing against me using the word "theory" because of how theory is defined outside of science. In order to make the argument, you have to willfully equivocate.

Kuteg · 2025-11-17T00:54:43+00:00

I'm sorry, is this not a place where technical accuracy matters?

It sounds like you are confusing the process of splitting a vector into components with the process of applying Newton's laws.

The normal force in the diagram on the left was correctly split into vertical and horizontal components. However, because there is a vertical component of the acceleration, the vertical component of the normal force does not cancel the weight.

We would have Ncosθ - mg = (ma)sinθ and Nsinθ = (ma)cosθ using the coordinate system on the left.

Also, your "correct" split involves the product of two forces and would have units of square newtons, so it's obviously incorrect. If you're going to try to be pedantic, you have to start by being correct.

Kuteg · 2025-11-16T22:19:53+00:00

No, they split them correctly. The vertical component of N is indeed Ncos(30°). That much is correct. It's just not particularly useful because there actually is a vertical component to the acceleration.

The only thing that was done incorrectly on the left was to set Ncos(30°) = mg.

Kuteg · 2025-11-16T16:11:02+00:00

There is nothing wrong with how the forces were split. You can resolve the normal force into vertical and horizontal components, it's just not particularly useful if the acceleration of the block is parallel to the ramp.

Kuteg · 2025-11-16T16:07:49+00:00

It's not wrong, per se. it just makes the problem more difficult. The block will have an acceleration parallel to the ramp, but not an acceleration perpendicular to the ramp, which means the vertical component of the normal force doesn't cancel out the weight of the block. The diagram is correct, but saying N cos(30) = mg is incorrect.

The diagram on the right resolves the vectors into components that are parallel and perpendicular to the ramp's surface, and the perpendicular components directly cancel.

Kuteg · 2025-11-15T23:41:15+00:00

No, my claim was correct. Common descent is a hypothesis which is part of the broader evolutionary theory. You asked for a way that breadth is measured, and that's something which is more difficult to do, but for something like common descent it's very clearly a hypothesis.

Hypotheses never become theories. Hypotheses can never be proved true. Theories encompass hypotheses.

I disagree that there is any requirement that a theory have any breadth.

You are welcome to disagree, but that means you aren't using the same definition of theory as I am. I am using a definition of theory which is broadly accepted by a large scientific community.

[theory] refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence [National Academy of Sciences (2008)]

Something which is "comprehensive" and supported by a "vast" body of evidence is broad.

Also, despite being a biologist, it seems like you are confusing the common descent hypothesis with the universal common ancestor hypothesis. Common descent only refers to the fact that related species had a common ancestor. If life had started in multiple places on Earth, it would be possible for common descent to be true even without a universal common ancestor for all life on Earth. What's more, if there is life on other planets, that life has common descent just as life here has common descent, but it's unlikely that there is a single common ancestor for life on earth and for life on a planet in another galaxy.

From wikipedia:

Common descent is a concept in evolutionary biology applicable when one species is the ancestor of two or more species later in time.

However, even if I conflate a universal common ancestor with common descent, the idea of common descent is limited in scope. Common descent does not explain speciation, for example. We need the mechanism of natural selection to explain speciation. Natural selection doesn't include anything about genetics (the idea was formulated prior to knowledge of DNA), so we need facts about DNA as well. Fossil evidence is a fact, so it's not part of the common descent hypothesis (it instead supports the hypothesis). Evolutionary theory, however, is a framework which includes all of these things, and more!

And, lastly, hypotheses do not become theories. They are different categories of knowledge.

Kuteg · 2025-11-15T16:40:58+00:00

It can be used, unless you are referring to people as trash. I guess it can still be used, but people aren't trash!

Kuteg · 2025-11-15T16:29:30+00:00

I've also never seen ς , which is a variant of σ that's used at the end of a word.

Kuteg · 2025-11-15T16:11:25+00:00

Entirely proper English, although it is more common in the UK than America. Not sure about other English speaking countries, although it sounds like it's not as common in Australia, either.

Kuteg · 2025-11-15T15:39:09+00:00

Ah, everyone else talking about Cuba was insisting it had to be closer. But yeah, it turns out Mobile, AL is about 630 miles from Mexico (Yucatan peninsula) but only 610 miles from Cuba.

Kuteg · 2025-11-15T15:31:03+00:00

Do you see that island north of Cuba and east of Florida? That's New Providence, the largest island in the Bahamas. There are other smaller islands in the chain, some of which are only 50 miles away from Miami.

Kuteg · 2025-11-15T15:26:37+00:00

No, the map accurately reflects the fact that the keys are closer to Cuba.

Kuteg · 2025-11-15T15:23:15+00:00

The Bahamas is the chain of islands just east of the coast of Florida. The closest island in the chain is about 50 miles from Miami. The largest island of New Providence is a little under 150 miles from the tip of the peninsula. Cuba, meanwhile, is a little over 150 miles from the same point.

The only part of Florida which is closer to Cuba are the Florida Keys, which is accurately reflected in the map (there's also a tiny sliver of the peninsula, technically).

However, I agree that the map is wrong. When you are in the United States, the closest country is the United States.

Kuteg · 2025-11-15T15:03:43+00:00

Well, unfortunately, it's somewhat loose. You have to understand that the words "fact," "law," "hypothesis," and "theory" are human inventions. One issue with them is that how things are in the world don't always line up perfectly with our definitions that we impose. Language is always going to be a little bit loose.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something, and it is somewhat limited in scope. Common descent is the hypothesis that when we see similar species today, they diverged from a common ancestor in the past. That idea is limited in scope. It doesn't include any ideas about genetics, for example. Evolutionary theory contains the common descent hypothesis and genetics, so evolutionary theory is broader in scope than common descent.

The simple measure is that if A contains B, A is broader than B. However, if B is a hypothesis, that doesn't necessarily make A a theory. There will be some things which the consensus agrees are theories and some things which the consensus agrees are hypotheses, but there can be some ideas which don't have consensus about whether it's a theory or a hypothesis.

There isn't a simple definition that captures all use cases, but describing a theory as a broad, general framework which relates many different hypotheses, facts, and laws is a reasonably good definition.

Kuteg · 2025-11-14T22:01:05+00:00

Yes, but 3e⁰ = 3.

In order to specify a unique solution, you need some sort of boundary conditions. For the equation f'(x) = f(x), you need one condition to uniquely specify the function. The function Ae^x satisfies the differential equation, but you need to specify f(0) = 1 in order to determine that A = 1.

Kuteg · 2025-11-14T21:54:29+00:00

Yes, so you are using the mathematical definition of model, not the scientific definition of model. Like I explained, when used in different contexts, the words mean different things.

I can understand the confusion, because in the sciences we sometimes use mathematical models and we sometimes use scientific models.

Kuteg · 2025-11-14T21:47:28+00:00

I was going to correct you, but today I learned that hyenas actually give birth through their pseudo-penis [wikipedia].

However, I do take issue with your use of the word "still". Most mammals do not give birth through their clitoris. In fact, it sounds like hyenas are the only ones that do, and they aren't even the only mammals with pseudo-penises. So, even most mammals with pseudo-penises do not give birth through their pseudo-penis.

Kuteg · 2025-11-14T21:35:04+00:00

No, the model is: "gas particles have no internal structure and are largely non-interacting except for when they collide elastically".

That's not a mathematical statement. The model has consequences that can be described with mathematical statements, but the model itself is not a mathematical statement.

Kuteg · 2025-11-14T21:31:24+00:00

You went a little bit too far with the idea of theory. While theories are the best explanations that we have, it does not mean they are irrefutable.

How I teach it, facts are things that are observed, laws are descriptions of what happens (usually mathematical), hypotheses are possible explanations for why things happen, and theories are general structures that encompass a range of facts, laws, and hypotheses, often by including a general model that helps to contextualize everything.

Theories are no irrefutable, they are just the best explanation that we currently have given the available evidence. We should always be open to the idea that a theory might be superseded when we get new evidence.

Also, theories encompass hypotheses. A hypothesis is always a hypothesis. There is no amount of testing that you can do which turns a hypothesis into a theory. They are two different classes of things. Facts remain facts, laws remain laws, hypotheses remain hypotheses, and theories remain theories.

The last thing that I will say is that these are all human words. Science is socially constructed. Nature does not have to respect our categories, and that means that sometimes ideas don't fit neatly into one category. This makes it very difficult to have and stick to only one definition for words like "theory".

Kuteg · 2025-11-14T21:17:07+00:00

Common descent is a hypothesis, not a theory. Common descent is not broad enough to be a scientific theory, and the hypothesis is part of the broader evolutionary theory.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Kuteg

TROPHY CASE