![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Every other year the EU tries to pass another mass surveillance law - and the EU court of human rights rules it illegal.
Every other year the EU tries to pass another mass surveillance law - and the EU court of human rights rules it illegal.
I have never worked on machine learning, what does the B stand for? Billion? Bytes?
You’re right, I mixed it up with the complex numbers being isomorphic to R^2. Thanks for clearing it up!
Love btw how I get downvoted for an honest mistake.
Is this some joke I’m not getting? Cause yes, real numbers are the closure of irrational numbers, but imaginary numbers are just isomorphic to them.
Just to add some formality to this, the original commenter might want to look up the shell theorem for classical mechanics and Birkhoff’s theorem for general relativity.
Yeah, quantum mechanics lingo: measurement = interaction
Actually a good point, tho. And also a good thought: If there is no special direction, what would be up? And that’s where quantum mechanics gets even weirder: It’s either up or down in the direction you measure.
The technical term you’re looking for is “almost all” prime numbers. Not joking btw.
I had to derive osmotic pressure for my statistical mechanics exam in my bachelor’s. So in what sense don’t we know?
At least cosmology does use some serious quantum physics, even quantum field theory. Source: took 1 year of theoretical cosmology lectures.
Why unjust?
They weren’t talking about radioactive decay, electrons are stable. They were talking about electrically charged particles emitting electromagnetic radiation when accelerated. (Circular movement is accelerated, see centripetal force) Since they use energy for this, they would very quickly fall into the nucleus (if I remember correctly, in around 10^-14 s).
Bodies with mass also emit gravitational waves when accelerated, but much less.
I know. But generally, the gender of the noun describing a person correlates with the gender of the person described strongly.
Well, you’re arguing terminology. But the original commenter’s point was about the association of grammatical gender with gender, and that is definitely a thing in German.
Der Arzt (Male doctor) -> die Ärztin (female doctor) is an example where the grammatical gender changes with the gender of the person, and that’s almost always the case.
Well, as a German, I wouldn’t agree. Generally, nouns describing men are masculine and nouns describing women are feminine. “Das Mädchen” is just an odd one out because it’s the diminutive (always neuter in German) of “die Maid”, which in turn is feminine.
Yes, this doesn’t really apply to objects, but it mostly does for people.
Pretty sure a court told them to.
I’m not trying to argue approximations. Physics is just approximations all the way down. But as a physicist, I also love arguing about technicalities, and that’s also kinda the point of science communities for me.
But the point of general relativity is that a free-floating observer is equivalent to an observer in free space. That means that falling due to gravity, which you call a force, is an unaccelerated movement, i.e. no force.
In German, we have “Wenn Fliegen hinter Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach”. Notice that all nouns are capitalized in German.