trentlott

I'm getting a PhD at a US News top 100 University (lol), and I'm published in a journal we don't have access to.

I think your fear shouldn't be of push back about the conclusion but wholesale ignorance of the topic.

That's always struck me as sort of inconsequential, even though light is the apparent "speed limit" of the universe.

The same thing happens with sound regularly. A thing happens, and we receive light before we receive sound. Some third faster thing that gets to us before light would just be some other thing.

The distance of travel requires time relative to both reference frames.

If a star explodes at A and I travel to B at 2x the speed of light to tell folks at B, so what? Some time has elapsed and those two frames are still chugging along with causality.

Maybe there's some physics I've not learned that makes this obvious, but I've never grasped exactly why violating light speed prevents entropy from continuing. Even if at two different rates.

If we perfectly timestamped everything happening on two sides of the world and sent a telegram at twice lightspeed from A to B, it would still arrive after it is sent.

Because organs won't start shutting down without it.

Is there research for that?

I would imagine that people report fewer dreams due to cannabinoids' memory effects, rather than an impact on REM sleep. Failing to remember dreams does not mean an absence of them.

An increase in nightmares could easily be due to increased stress/amygdala function depressed by cannabinoids.

Addiction and dependence are different.

That's why we differentiate between addiction and dependence.

Alcohol dependence prevents cold turkey for some people.

Well, it depends.

As far as I remember, the vehicle is propylene glycol. It isn't biologically inert, and I'm not sure how much work has been done to study buildup within the lungs or combustion products. Combine that with dodgy sourcing allowing metal contamination.

It seems more or less the definition of trading the devil you know for one you don't.

I'm sure Cerezo will fully incorporate his "friend's" story into the marketing package when he begins renting out the island.

Welcome to the NHI! Live naked in nature with seventeen of your closest hermies! Dine on exotic turtle eggs and local sashimi with our Nowhere/Outtatime champagne service, available anywhere on the island at the press of a networked coconut.

Remember: please litter! We don't spoil the natural surroundings with trash recepticals, so leave all refuse on the beach for our "permaHermies" to happily pick up.

(Nudity optional- there is no uniform!)

Suck/blow + hard/soft

Formaldehyde is such a small molecule that you'll never avoid it. It forms pretty easily.

Carbs are the easiest thing to break down and digest.

Pure glucose would be ideal, from a 'breakdown' perspective.

You've apparently read too many homeopathic pamphlets.

Get pH paper and test them both. They're both acetic acid and low pH. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be vinegar.

If it was basic, it would be some acetate salt.

The bicarb is what really matters

If you care, do it

Now's better than never. It's an important topic.

Right. Chemically, most things are helium-resistant. It's a noble element.

It's apparently just that someone came up with a way to allow the gas that forms inside the metal to escape by allowing nanocomposite phases to link up as He is generated.

As a grad student, I currently do. Losing two paychecks, though, would make my life really unbearable.

Why am I deferring the ability to save money for retirement?

I'm not taking lecture classes, but my research still requires tuition. I work in lab at least 6 days a week. I teach labs for 150 students a semester for my department, and stay up until midnight writing/reviewing papers or grading. I get two weeks of vacation year, which I take over Christmas, but never the whole period because I need to get work done before teaching starts up again.

Nobody would take out students loans to do this. Our take-home is typically enough to escape financial worry, but not much beyond it. If the bill passes, you'll see a lot of students drop out with masters, and schools will be left unable to offer science courses to most students.

There is a shortage of grad students in many departments.

Cutting PhD students would require cutting the number of undergrad students educated and classes offered to them. This would prevent science and engineering students from getting their bachelor's on time because of requirements for science sequences. An undergrad 4-year degree becomes 5 years long or aren't completed at all.

The need to expand class offerings to teach undergrads requires TAs to teach labs. Our department is already over-offering classes compared to the number of grad student TAs.

> this would absolutely gut higher education research in the US

It will also gut undergraduate education.

All of our science labs are taught by graduate students. As it is, we have more classes than PhD students to teach them. For a few semesters, we've been forced to ask one of our undergraduates to lead a lab. If the bill passes, the university will likely cut classes offered.

This will not only disrupt a semester, but entire degrees. Introductory Chemistry, for example, is a requirement for other upper-level classes. If students can't get into a section, they will have a chain reaction of delayed classes and increased time to graduation. I suspect it will increase the dropout rate of undergraduates as well, beyond the PhDs who decide to drop out with a master's.

Further, the publishing of science will be hurt. Work is mostly done by grad students and postdocs. Not all labs have enough funding for a postdoc, but all of them in our department (chem) have grad students. Without workers, the work can't be done.

Likely, we'll have to rely on more affluent international students to come and suffer through the PhD process. Hopefully they'll stay, but they may leverage their degree into a strong position back home where their family and friends are, and where people speak their language.

American students who have the money to do a PhD probably won't. It's incredibly hard and abstractly rewarding, and academia is not a path to much wealth or power.

Poor kids with a work ethic won't be able to work their ass off through undergrad and get to a PhD program where they only need to worry about work.

The tradeoff of saving for retirement and accruing career momentum will be replaced with students doubling their loan burden to get through the 4 years of undergrad and the 5 years of grad school. Good thing they removed the ability to deduct interest payments.

The American Dream is deep in my heart, and they made the edges razor sharp.

Just for fun, my real take-home pay is 21k.

With this tax increase, I'll lose a paycheck and a half.

I live in the Southeast, so my cost of living is pretty low- but salaries are mostly the same no matter what. I won't be destitute with this cut, but I will have very little wiggle room. I don't know what students in more expensive cities will do.

My partner and I are the pride of our families for getting PhDs. We both come from poor families, so we don't have anybody to turn to for help aside from one another. She sends home a few hundred bucks a month to support her parents, and I feed her so she can afford to.

Grad school is hard for a whole lot of reasons. It's hard to get American students interested in doing it. For a party that claims America First, they're doing a lot of things to ensure that our citizens have very few incentives to choose it as a career. It takes half a decade to get a degree. You get no raises, almost no vacation, constant work, few free weekends, ambiguous goals, and (for academics) a post-grad career path that seems like 2-4 years of the same thing.

I don't know if I have a point. I'm just 5 years in and kind of tired of departmental politics (and now with national politics). I love my work and have pretty good prospects, but I know I got lucky with the group I joined. I'd advise most students to make grad school their 2nd or 3rd option, if med/osteopath schools don't take them or they can't find an entry-level industry opening. Even a master's in something middling might be useful and much shorter.

Or novels, or nonfiction.

I'm only a few minutes in, but they lay out the basics of anthropogenic warming really, really well.

"Within the states of US"

That's implying interstate travel. Are you claiming ICE has authority to stop someone going from Georgia to Tennessee? The analogy was EU countries to US states, and specifically did not include international US borders.

Well, the genesis of his paragraph is that he played a game, which he wasn't interested in enough to buy, for a weekend.

Why this piece got so far up I can't say, but I suppose interesting headlines count the same as interesting writing.

They probably don't have much choice for where they did it. The animals likely couldn't see it, and the stress levels were probably minimal. It's not likely to be enough to harm the experiment.

While, yes, everything can be a variable, the effect wouldn't be big. I imagine the person running the lab had done this before and has gotten good results: rats are expensive and a hassle to keep. If his experiments had been 'screwed over' because of practices like that, his PI probably wouldn't be able to gather enough useful data to afford funding for animal use.

So some hardware maker should propose and publish an open intranetworking guide, ideally.

There could be an interesting market for Apple clocks and Apple thermostats, but to increase the likelihood of something like that becoming popular (vs just using the easy Wi-Fi route), wouldn't it taken an unlikely push like that?

It will be a long time before manufacturers decide whether or not to put everything online, I think.

Having worked in a nursing home, the outlook someone with Alzheimer's has in not pleasant. It's confusing and, in the early stages, you're aware of everything you love and the understanding of your place in the world slowly slipping away.

I think that was Schrodinger's argument in "What is Life": nature seeks to maximise entropy, and life does a very good job of it.

Right! It's obvious he's lacking some (relatively) recent information. And he vastly overestimates our ability to do things like simulate biochemical interactions.

Is he arguing that Dwarf Fortress has codes for souls? Because I feel like his argument and example say exactly the opposite.