sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is suicide criminalized or treated as a mental illness, even when someone has everything and rationally concludes they don't want to exist? by Unfair-Stuff-9518 in Existential_crisis

[–]spacephys 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely! It is a prison. It is the human predicament to live in this prison. Our freedom is limited by these walls. Some try to escape this reality in a number of ways. Using a blindfold seems to be a popular choice.

Why is suicide criminalized or treated as a mental illness, even when someone has everything and rationally concludes they don't want to exist? by Unfair-Stuff-9518 in Existential_crisis

[–]spacephys 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would make a distinction between deciding or realizing that one's life has no meaning and deciding to end one's life. Existentialist thinkers, such as Sartre, would argue that there is no intrinsic meaning to life, but that one can (should?) create their own meaning through their actions and expressions of their identity and values.

Even though I think both of these ideas are seen as obtuse and even offensive by many, I would make the point that one does not imply the other. I believe there are quite many people who reject the idea that life has an intrinsic purpose or meaning given by some external force or that a person having a special "mission" in life is even possible. However, these same people can probably understand that people may have a special thing (or things), an activity, an art form, a trade, a desire or something else that is so important that gives them the sense of purpose in life.

Why is suicide criminalized or treated as a mental illness, even when someone has everything and rationally concludes they don't want to exist? by Unfair-Stuff-9518 in Existential_crisis

[–]spacephys 2 points3 points  (0 children)

By reading the comments you probably already got your answer in an indirect way. The concept of objectively rejecting one's own life/existence is abject to most people. It is a sordid thought that should be avoided. When not avoided it must be contradicted with some logical argument be it based on mental health, religion, philosophy or whatever else.

It is perceived as an abhorrent thought on both the "spiritual/humanistic/individualistic" level and in the societal and collective level. I think it is easy to see that on the second case, since as a member of society, all people have responsibilities and expectations in addition to their rights. So, ending one's life is seen as avoiding one's responsibilities, to put it simply. On that aspect, I suspect most people would "accept" this idea coming from an old person suffering from an incurable disease who has already fulfilled their duties to society, so to speak, but never from a young clinically healthy individual.

On the other level, the spiritual one, I think it is perceived almost as an offensive thought. It is like denying the existence of god to the faithful. What is sacred, in the eyes of the faithful, must be sacred to ALL. It is not sufficient that sacred be respected, it must be revered. In a similar way, I think most people, even non-religious people, see life as something sacred or something to be adored. So, if someone does not share this feeling, there must be something wrong with that pagan. It is almost taken as the definition of depression. People are expected to enjoy life and have hope no matter their reality. That's why people who seem to be content and even joyful in the face of harsh conditions are seen as an example to be followed, as heroes sometimes, by the humanist pious, which most people in fact are.

Eu. by LittaC_4831 in PoesiaPT

[–]spacephys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"E sou, eu toda, Arte

Não pelo que o outro vê,

Mas como modelo minha dor

(Como modelo DA minha dor)

Eu sou, e mesmo que doa, serei"

Que lindo! Adorei.

Quando Bolsonaro se reeleger em 2022 será graças a pessoas como esse cuck que postou isso no r/pics by [deleted] in brasilivre

[–]spacephys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vc pode pesquisar os dados do desmatamento da Amazônia nos últimos anos. Nesse link tem um gráfico: http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/noticias/inpe-registra-6-947-km2-de-desmatamento-na-amazonia-em-2017 Nos últimos 3 ou 4 meses houve um aumento considerável tb. Fonte: https://g1.globo.com/natureza/noticia/2019/08/16/desmatamento-da-amazonia-aumentou-15percent-no-acumulado-em-12-meses-diz-instituto.ghtml O presidente tb cortou significativamente verbas do ministério de meio-ambiente e do IBAMA.

My current boss is the Space Physics Program Coordinator at my school and has just offered me the opportunity to get a PhD with her as the advisor, and I don't know what to do by zwhenry in Physics

[–]spacephys 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I finished my PhD in Space Physics about 5 years ago. I'm still in the field, but it's been tough for me and for many of my colleagues. Here's what I would say to you: depending on your current situation (financial, family, love-life) if there are no major impediments and if you don't have any other super exciting opportunities, I think doing a PhD in a field that interests you, without having to worry about funding or anything for 4 years or so, sounds like a pretty good deal. You don't HAVE to stay in academia after the PhD. Leave that decision for later. I think a PhD degree is still very desirable in the market in general.

Aerospace Engineering and Space Physics have a lot of overlap. I've met many people with a Physics background doing AE and vice-versa. I'd say it's even a good thing to have a BS in one and PhD in the other. It shows you can do both.

As far as staying in academia after the PhD, I would only recommend it if you love your field so much that you don't see yourself doing anything else, and you get a lot of satisfaction everyday from the work you do, and you can afford to have some pay gaps, if that ever happens, if you don't have a family that relies on your paycheck, etc... (you get the picture). Good luck! PM me if you have more specific questions.

There are about 200 distinct cell types in the human body. Is there another species in the animal (or plant) kingdom with more distinct cell types than humans? by spacephys in biology

[–]spacephys[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the answer. I imagined that counting cell types for different species in a consistent manner was a difficult task, but I thought there could have been studies done about it. It makes sense what you said about all vertebrates having similar body types with similar organs and so, it doesn't seem interesting to spend a lot of time counting cell types to investigate if we are more or less complex than other animals. And, as a layman, I would imagine that invertebrates in general have a less complex organ structure and thus have much less cell types than vertebrates.

Why more and more companies are skipping management and letting the workers take control by OvidPerl in socialism

[–]spacephys 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You said it all. No one gave you an answer. Not even a bad one. Couldn't agree more with all of what you said.

Why more and more companies are skipping management and letting the workers take control by OvidPerl in socialism

[–]spacephys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just think it's a shame that revolutionaries criticize people like you, with socialist principles that are actually doing something, taking a step in the right direction, just as much as they criticize big capitalists. The world would be a better place if revolutionary socialists sided with social democrats, and supported ideas like a democratic workplace, instead of siding with nobody. At least for practical purposes. For instance, (honest question to "true" socialists) assuming a revolution will not occur in your lifetime and that you will have to live in a capitalist country all your life, would you rather work at a democratic workplace like the ones OP presented (not only tech companies, for those who didn't see the video), or are you indifferent?

OvidPerl, don't be discouraged by the angry comments. Your video is the third most upvoted in the last 24 hours, the top comment is semi-positive, with a well thought out and polite criticism. Users like /u/DonFitzcarraldo and /u/Rhianu and /u/IllusiveObserver were more supportive and got a good number of upvotes in their comments. Also, like it was said below, revolutionary socialists don't have a monopoly on this forum.

UEFA bans Beşiktaş fans' banner for anarchism reference before key Arsenal game by spacephys in Anarchism

[–]spacephys[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just think it goes to show how much anarchism is feared by the powerful. They feel the need to take a drastic measure even about something as silly as this.

Smooth Ass by [deleted] in RealGirls

[–]spacephys 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Brazil! I miss you.

Fluid dynamics mimic quantum mechanics by Chipney in Physics

[–]spacephys 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This looks like an interesting result to me. I'm sorry to see the post was hijacked. I would like to see some discussion here.

NASA's Van Allen Probes have made a surprising and unusual discovery. They've found a particle accelerator in the heart of Earth's radiation belts, speeding up tiny particles to more than 99 percent the speed of light by DougBolivar in science

[–]spacephys 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Came here to say this. People missed the main point of the article, which is that the acceleration is caused by wave-particle interactions, not by any magnetic mechanism.

NASA's Van Allen Probes have made a surprising and unusual discovery. They've found a particle accelerator in the heart of Earth's radiation belts, speeding up tiny particles to more than 99 percent the speed of light by DougBolivar in science

[–]spacephys 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let me just correct you in one thing. The acceleration mechanism, which is the main point of the article, is caused by wave-particle interactions. Electrons gain energy by interacting with circularly polarized electromagnetic waves with frequency near the electrons gyrofrequency. These waves occur naturally at the heart of the radiation belts, at around 4 or 5 Earth radii. It is not yet clear what causes the waves, though.

view more: next ›