If you add a dye of a particular color that sticks to the particular surface protein, yes.

Size? Of... Molecules?

Because the moon is perfectly* round, and the halo is created from the light being reflected (then refracted, as others have said) from the moon.

If you were able to see a halo around, say Haumea, for instance, the halo would be very oblong.

*The moon is, of course, not perfectly round. But, it is close enough to make the halo appear perfectly round.

People forget that even exhaled air still has a lot of oxygen in it. It's not like we exhale straight CO2.

[removed]

One thing about torque specifications I don't understand is when a manufacturer calls for a certain lb-ft of torque, why do they sometimes add an additional degrees of rotation afterwards?

That's seems counter-intuituve and less accurate of a fastener safety measurement.

This is correct, it's something called solidity, ratio of number of blades, diameter and chord length. Generally the lower you go the more efficient, though there is some lower limit.

[removed]

I don't really agree with the term "AI" here, but let's use it for now.

I'll speak for neural networks, and particularly, a method called "supervised learning", i.e. learning where you as a human know the inputs and the desired outputs of the learning data set.

Neural network is just a mathematical model that:

1. takes in some inputs,
2. does some math on these inputs, and
3. spits out an output.

Training the AI is, in simplest possible terms, adjusting the parameters of step 2.

When training the AI, you have a bunch of data where you know the inputs and outputs. Say you want to train the AI to recognize which image has a cat in it. You have a bunch of images, and you, as a human, know which ones are cats, and which aren't. Those images will be used to train the AI.

So, in the process of training you:

1. Give the AI its input (images of cats; and from the perspective of computer software, an image is just an array of pixels each with a particular color)
2. .
3. Give the AI the output, i.e. tell it which images have cats and which don't by giving each image a 0 or 1 value.

Now with known inputs and outputs, the AI tries to figure out the middle step. Similar to how when you've got an equation 3 × X = 6 you try to figure out what X is by asking "what number do I multiply with 3 to get to 6?", the AI tries to figure out "what kind of math do I need to do to a bunch of this pixel data to get to '1'?".

This is done through some mathematical algorithms, essentially by first trying certain parameters and seeing what output it gets it and then iterating with math to get closer to the solution. And through that process, the AI adjusts its own parameters so that, when you give it a bunch of pixels, it can take that pixel data, do math, and the result of that math equals 1 if there's a cat in the image and 0 if there are no cats.

So, in short (and oversimplified), you've got equations:

"image with a cat" × X = 1

"image without a cat" × X = 0

Training is using a bunch of mathematical algorithms on known data to figure out what X is.

Now that the X is known, you can give AI an unknown image so it can do math "X" on it, and figure out on its own whether the image contains a cat.

Yeah, but in context it's the hypothesis that sterile neutrinos explain the anomaly. I edited the post above after checking the research article.

They also say, > we reject with high CL the hypothesis of a sterile neutrino of mass around 1 eV.

Viable sterile neutrino dark matter models are generally at least 1000 times heavier than that, in the keV range. That's because if the dark matter particle were too light, its thermal motion would eliminate variations in the density of the universe at the scales of dwarf galaxies, preventing those galaxies (which we observe and hence know to exist) from forming.

is that also the reason the speed doesnt matter? i wondered a few days ago how plants can absorb photons traveling at the speed of light

>I wonder if lab-grown adrenal glands would be a viable alternative to how it's done today

We don't get adrenaline from animals anymore. We haven't since around 1906 when Friedrich Stolz figured out how to synthesize from adrenalone

wait, the color of the entire cell would change based on the surface protein?

The inside of your eye is a "dark room" like the insides of a camera; your pupils appear black even though they are transparent because the retina is dark and reflects little light. Light bouncing around the eyeball would cause glare and reduction of contrast.

Where are you getting this information?...

It's not correct. We don't extract adrenaline anymore. It's synthesized from adrenalone. It has been since about 1906

To expand a bit, aside from the early universe point in terms of how we get anything smaller than a gas giant for dark matter. One thing that is possible even for hard to detect ordinary matter is that even non-detection sets limits for the size and quantity of those objects. So, surveys watching for occultations and gravitational lensing events on stars in Andromeda or distant galaxies or quasar by these objects if they made up the Milky Way's dark matter halo set limits on the size and quantity of planet sized objects and even planet mass primordial black holes. I believe the current boundaries for size and quantity of objects that have not been eliminated as significant dark matter contribitors is pretty small right now.

You're extracting energy from the flow of wind, and there is a finite amount of energy to be extracted.

It's easier to think of the analogy of a hydro turbine in a river. The water clearly has mass and velocity, which gives it energy. As the water makes the turbine blades spin, you extract some of the energy from the water and turn it into rotational energy of the blades. Thus, the water behind the turbine has less energy and will be moving slower. If I put another turbine behind it, the water that hits it will have far less energy to extract.

Where it gets complicated is that the water behind a turbine blades will have lower pressure than the water in front of it, because energy has been extracted. As you know, a low pressure fluid wants to flow towards a high pressure fluid, so this would theoretically induce flow 'backwards' through the turbine. In reality, it just acts as a resistive force against the fluid flowing through turbine. The more energy you extract, the more the fluid 'behind' the blades will resist the flow.

This actually leads to some interesting math: to maximize efficiency, a wind turbine should only extract 50-60% of the energy flowing across its rotor area. Thus, if you can make one set of blades extract 50-60%, then an additional set of blades is unnecessary and will only add cost and complexity.

Edited to add a source for the last point on the math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law

[removed]

Paracetamol is extremely toxic in case of overdose, and the lethal dose is quite low so it is possible to overdose if you take too many pills in a short interval of time. If by long term toxicity you mean taking a low dose of paracetamol everyday for example there is an increased probability of toxicity. But generally speaking if the dose is low there shouldn't be much of an effect. Its only toxic after surpassing the limit your liver can process. There are substances that are immediately tox at any dose, lead for example. Other are only really affecting you negatively only after a certain dosage, being harmless before arriving at that point

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Is this correct? My understanding is that when a gas exapands it draws in energy from the surroundings. Which is why its previous vessel cools down like how you mentioned the can getting cool, but the gas itself gained energy. Meanwhile, a gas compressor is used in AC units to force the gas flowing through the line to release its heat which is then dissipated across a radiator with air flowed over by a fan. Am I missing something?