eli5, how could there possibly be a smallest possible distance? why couldn't you have half a planck?

(i've heard about this planck length before, not in any way trying to say you're wrong, it just seems so unintuitive to me that *distance* could be finitely divisible.)

Well the toxins get in your lungs, from there they get into your bloodstream, then they travel to your brain, depending on what kind of toxins they are because there size does matter, they might enter your brain cells and disrupt your neurological connections. That's how you get symptoms like nausea, hallucination, dizzynees... From drugs and alcohols

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

Nope, it hasn't changed. Each key plays a different sound (actually two tones at once), and the computer on the other one listens for those sounds.

The only difference is that your smartphone has the option of sending those sounds without playing them out loud for you to hear.

Yes. Normally, your brain takes two separate but similar images from your two eyes and fuses them together to make your "vision". When the two images aren't similar however, like if the picture from one eye is much blurrier or you have a lazy eye that's pointing in a different direction, they're too different for your brain to fuse together. Instead of confusing you with two dissimilar overlapping pictures, your brain says "well, this is probably the right one and it'll be good enough" about the good eye and literally just stops displaying the bad eye to you.

After a while, it stops even checking to see if the bad eye has something useful to display since it never ends up using it, and the pathway from that eyeball to your brain atrophies. All brains are plastic, meaning they can create new pathways, but babies brains are way more plastic than adults, so it's critical to correct this issue as soon as possible. You can try to fix it when someone's older, but you're unlikely to be as successful.

If you don't fix it in time, the person will literally stop being able to see out of that eye because the path that sends the image from the eye to the brain just doesn't work anymore. Nothing happened to the eye itself, but without that connection the image won't get to your brain for you to be able to see it. You'll mostly see out of just one eye when you have both eyes open although if you close your good eye you may still be able to see something out of the bad eye depending on how atrophied that pathway between the eye and brain are. However, you'll probably never be able to completely successfully fuse two images together, which can result in lifelong vision problems.

Sorry. The traditional textbook answer is that no, it's not possible after childhood.

However, there's a blurb on the wikipedia page that says that may be outdated knowledge. There is tentative evidence that it might be possible. If I were you, I'd look into the linked sources on that wiki page and talk to your doctor about your options.

What you are calling is a computer or what they call Interactive Voice Response (IVR) listening. Each key pressed has its own assigned tone. The computer matches the tone with the number pressed. The computer then routes that customer support call to a human that is pre-assigned to that number that has the skills to answer the questions of the number chosen by you. The technical term is called Dual-Tone Multi-Frequency signaling (or DTMF). In customer support centers humans are assigned to those (queues) numbers based off of skills sets that have knowledge in different areas of the business.

My eye doctor told me this is what happened to my left eye. My vision in my right eye is very good, but the vision in my left eye is terrible. If I close my right eye, I can only make out letters if they're several inches tall. Is there any way of correcting this as an adult?

[removed]

The tricky part is defining “CMYK conversion”. A strict “technically correct” conversion tends to look terrible.

The way you do colors on a screen is by blending RG and B light. This is called additive color. CMYK adds pigments that block all but a specific band of light. There are some colors that are super hard to reproduce in one or the other. A nice dark four color black is impossible to reproduce on a monitor, not just because it’s hard to get the screen super-black, but it also doesn’t absorb light reflected off of it. It’s not of it’s surrounding, it’s it’s own light source.

So you have to consider a lot of things when you talk about CMYK colors… like how white is the paper you’re printing on. A super bleach white paper vs newspaper, which is very gray-ish. If you spray a light mist of say red spray paint on each, they will come out to different colors. So what do you use for your baseline for your RGB-CMYK conversion? Now are you doing this with natural light, incandescent lights (which are slightly yellow) or LED lights (which tend to blue).

Pantone dodges this whole problem, and says what the finished product should look like. It’s right when it looks like the swatch from the book. And ink manufacturers make inks that you can put a thin solid coat down and hit the target without question.

Don't you think that the current kerfuffle with Adobe shows they erred a bit on the greedy side?

Industrial design. Linus at Linus Tech Tips uses Pantone plastic chips to ensure their vendors make merch with the exact colors in LTT’s color standards manual for their creative team.

Personally I use Pantone’s Bridge book which has swatches that are consistent from print, video, web, and social media because I deal with corporate clients with documentation up the wazoo on how to use their brand name in their project

Is there any use for Pantone outside of print?

Edit: Thanks for the responses. I was thinking too narrowly of print only, and wondering about the usefulness of Pantone with print becoming less prominent with so much media on screens. But the whole world of physical products isn’t going anywhere, neat stuff.

Aye. This too. Many have no idea they’ve been infected.

Lots of people with STDs are asymptomatic

In theory and without regard to ethics, yes.

But there are a few major problems.

1. Some STDs are more difficult to test for, accurately, than others. Herpes is a good example. It’s not an easy one to detect and our testing for it is not very accurate. So it’s difficult to tell who we’d need to actually isolate.

2. More of a question of what you mean by isolating? Some STDs can be passed on without direct sexual contact. For example, kissing can spread herpes if someone has an outbreak and doesn’t know it. And because of the inaccuracy of testing, it’s possible for people to have and spread it without knowing. So how far does isolating go? Anyone who’s ever had a sore or blister near their mouth? And are they completely separated from wider society?

3. Stigma is a real thing, and you’d be reinforcing stigmas for very little benefit. Almost all STDs are curable (those that are bacterial infections). Those that aren’t (viral infections) are extremely manageable in today’s medicine. Someone who contracts HIV/AIDS can live a long and full life with good, regular treatment as one example. So there’s no dire/medical reason to separate them from society and reinforce stigma against them and cause psychological harm to them when we can treat every STD pretty well.

Not all people would agree to this....or any solution for that matter.

There are many std's, each with differing levels of permenance or treatment durations.

It is possible to carry a disease and not be aware of it.

Some promiscuous people simply may not care.

People have varying levels of personal hygiene.

Many variables may make people lie about their health.

It is possible, though far less likely, for STDs to spread through nonsexual means of contact.

Ah, amblyopia. I was diagnosed with this at age 6. Patching somewhat helped, but my right eye is still dramatically stronger than my left.

[deleted]

this song explains it pretty well.

They can. That would absolutely work.

The question you should be asking, however, is “why won’t people with STDs isolate themselves from the rest of the population?”.

Many don’t want to. They’d rather enjoy their lives as much as possible and don’t care how it affects others. Furthermore, there are few consequences for spreading these diseases, and even fewer ways to prosecute them for it.

Edit: some don’t even know they have one!

This is more of a legal question than a medical one. This would be like arresting someone for catching the flu, except in this case, some of these STIs are life-long.

This would also discourage getting tested, thus increasing infectivity for those we can treat.

You saw how poorly that went for COVID, right? Now imagine trying to do that with EVEN MORE people and it's even harder to figure out who has the diseases you're trying to isolate.

Theoretically, yes, you can do it. In practice? Impossible.

[removed]

Each one makes a slightly different sounding bleep or bloop, and the computer recognizes the tone.