Happy Saturday morning, /sci/. Thought I'd try to start a comfy thread about the "stoned ape theory." Throw out whatever memes about broscience or Joe Rogan you want, it's just been on my mind recently.
In my personal experience, when I gave my dog weed in high school (I kind of regret this now, making him an unwilling experiment subject, but hear me out) I noticed he immediately started wandering around the house in a totally different path than normal. He walked around corners he never went to, climbed over or under chairs and furniture, hung out in rooms he usually never visited. Maybe a propagation strategy of psychoactive fauna is to induce "random walks" in the animals that consume them, expanding their range of growth. We also know that an advantage that put sapiens over neanderthals was their propensity to travel long distances. Put two and two together?
Obviously all evo-psych is speculation, but I think it's an interesting idea.
>intelligent race on planet in binary star system >plenty of sunlight, never nighttime >they get PV power going early >soon followed by solar wind satellite for massive power production
how could we even compete?
Can someone please prove (or point me to a proof) that the two definitions of entropy below are equivalent:
(Statistical definition)
for a quasistatic process (Classical definition)
Particularly i'm only interested in knowing how you would derive the classical definition from the statistical definiton, i'm not sure if it's possible the other way around nor am i interested. Thank you for your time.
How come when neoliberals and shitlibs and centrists question "the science" on things like GMOs or Monsanto, they're allowed to do so and nobody cares, but when conservatives or leftists or other non-neoliberal groups question "the science" on COVID, many journalists and politicians and political pundits argue that we need to remove and suppress any "disinformation" on social media? How come people are allowed to question the settled science on things like obesity (shitlibs say humans "healthy at any size") or GMOs (shitlibs say they're dangerous and need to be labeled), but not on other issues like COVID origins (lab leak is a conspiracy theory) or the efficacy of masks?
Is this evidence of bias or political motivation in the context of public discourse about science, or are these sorts of observations just cherry picking and conspiracy theories?
The Pope blessed Big Bang Theory soon after it was theorized by a Catholic school teacher in the 1940s... and since the Pope's word is infallible according to Catholics, and since they have a lot of money and power we been stuck with that stupid theory since even though redshift can be better explained by light losing energy through dark matter...
... can we petition the Pope to never open his jab about science ever again?
This always happens. Heliocentricism, etc... why cannot they just keep their mouths shut on issues that do not concern them?
