What if I told you that 7/0 is actually 7????

Would you believe me?

Would you believe me?

What if I told you that 7/0 is actually 7????

Would you believe me?

Would you believe me?

Could there be life at the sun? How can we really know if the sun doesn't have a terrestrial surface ? Theoretically an atmosphere could exist and provide shielding from the heat at the lower levels.

Greetings, anons

I am faced with a problem I have been facing for years. I have found myself addicted to Interracial porn, and several other genres. In all sincerity, I ask this as question: what is the psychology behind a fetish, what are its variables, can I change or control my fetish, and can I eliminate it? Surely there must be a scientific approach I can take to rid myself of these ills.

I am faced with a problem I have been facing for years. I have found myself addicted to Interracial porn, and several other genres. In all sincerity, I ask this as question: what is the psychology behind a fetish, what are its variables, can I change or control my fetish, and can I eliminate it? Surely there must be a scientific approach I can take to rid myself of these ills.

Will the right pheremones help me attract the ladies?

How many of you actually believe emotions are illogical? There's nothing illogical about them. People like to indulge in their emotions. The fucking end. But there is moar over the fucking horizon and we are being held back from reaching it on behalf of everyone stuck in the cycle of repetitive indulgence in the redundant petty shallow nonsense that has plagued us for a solid 50 years of modernity. There is emotional energy beyond our wildest dreams awaiting us, and honestly i think the only avenue is to shove as much indulgence into people's veins as possible to burn them out on the redundant played out greed and shallow hedonism they are only familiar with so that the only thing left is that hollow emptiness that haunts you into caring about the real things that matter. How do we do this?

Is Thorium based for nuclear power?

Why aren't we using it?

Why aren't we using it?

ace 2 receptor

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7674982/

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.19.435959v1.article-info

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7674982/

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.19.435959v1.article-info

>Galileo is the most overrated figure in the history of science. [...] Here’s a simple snapshot of Galileo at work.

>The cycloid. [...] The cycloid is the path traced by a point on a rolling circle. [...] What’s the area of the cycloid? That was a natural question in Galileo’s time. Finding areas of shapes like that is what geometers had been doing for thousands of years. Archimedes for instance found the area of any section of a parabola, and the area of a spiral, and so on. The cycloid was a natural next step. It fit right into this tradition.

>Of course nobody cared about the area of the cycloid as such. That’s not the point. [...] Archimedes, when he found his areas, gave clever geometrical arguments; gorgeous proofs. The point is not that he gave you a “formula” to compute various areas. How often have you needed to know the area of a spiral anyway? Never, of course. The point is not the result. The point is that Archimedes took human thought to a new level. His proofs are beautiful; they are logically flawless. They give you a sense that you are at the pinnacle of what the human mind can achieve. Everybody wanted to see more that kind of thing.

>So solving problems like the area of the cycloid then, in this sense, in the Archimedean sense, was the way to prove yourself a worthy geometer. So Galileo tried. And failed. All those brilliant feats of ingenuity that Archimedes and his friends had blessed us with; it just wasn’t happening for Galileo. He just wasn’t any good at it.

>In fact he said so himself. Here is a quote from Galileo on Archimedes: “Those who read his works realise only too clearly how inferior are all other minds compared with Archimedes’, and what small hope is left of ever discovering things similar to those he discovered.”

>That’s Galileo. And he’s quite right. Except maybe it’s not that *all* other minds are inferior to Archimedes. Although certainly Galileo’s is.

http://intellectualmathematics.com/blog/galileo-bad-archimedes-good/

>The cycloid. [...] The cycloid is the path traced by a point on a rolling circle. [...] What’s the area of the cycloid? That was a natural question in Galileo’s time. Finding areas of shapes like that is what geometers had been doing for thousands of years. Archimedes for instance found the area of any section of a parabola, and the area of a spiral, and so on. The cycloid was a natural next step. It fit right into this tradition.

>Of course nobody cared about the area of the cycloid as such. That’s not the point. [...] Archimedes, when he found his areas, gave clever geometrical arguments; gorgeous proofs. The point is not that he gave you a “formula” to compute various areas. How often have you needed to know the area of a spiral anyway? Never, of course. The point is not the result. The point is that Archimedes took human thought to a new level. His proofs are beautiful; they are logically flawless. They give you a sense that you are at the pinnacle of what the human mind can achieve. Everybody wanted to see more that kind of thing.

>So solving problems like the area of the cycloid then, in this sense, in the Archimedean sense, was the way to prove yourself a worthy geometer. So Galileo tried. And failed. All those brilliant feats of ingenuity that Archimedes and his friends had blessed us with; it just wasn’t happening for Galileo. He just wasn’t any good at it.

>In fact he said so himself. Here is a quote from Galileo on Archimedes: “Those who read his works realise only too clearly how inferior are all other minds compared with Archimedes’, and what small hope is left of ever discovering things similar to those he discovered.”

>That’s Galileo. And he’s quite right. Except maybe it’s not that *all* other minds are inferior to Archimedes. Although certainly Galileo’s is.

http://intellectualmathematics.com/blog/galileo-bad-archimedes-good/

Like a Commonplace book but it's a thread instead (hence the name)!

Dump notes about something you're learning or are interested in explaining here.

Who knows, maybe somebody will learn from your notes, use/steal them, correct your understanding of the subject, and/or add onto them.

All subjects of any field from biology to logic—whether treated at an advanced, simple, intermediate, or fundemental/philosophical level—are welcomed to be discussed here.

:^)

Dump notes about something you're learning or are interested in explaining here.

Who knows, maybe somebody will learn from your notes, use/steal them, correct your understanding of the subject, and/or add onto them.

All subjects of any field from biology to logic—whether treated at an advanced, simple, intermediate, or fundemental/philosophical level—are welcomed to be discussed here.

:^)