Dumb Questions Thread

[UKMikey]

But such environments (the pressure and the helium in the same place) don't exist naturally as far as we know so that's why it has only been discovered through artificial experimentation? Unless I've misunderstood it as well.

I'd read the article @HenrySwanson posted if I were you. It says such environments can be found within the Earth's mantle layer.

There are a few other inert elements, mostly the noble gases. Do they also react under extreme pressure not typically found or known in nature

I've no idea. I'm sure the scientists are experimenting on those as well and will publish their findings if anything comes up.

But to answer my question, it looks like the energyeducation website is technically incorrect or outdated.

 

[Barra333]

That article specifies that the compound is stable at 113 gigapascals, which is absurdly high. As long as my conversions are ok, the deepest part of the ocean is at a pressure of something like 0.03 gigapascals.

 

[UKMikey]

That article specifies that the compound is stable at 113 gigapascals, which is absurdly high. As long as my conversions are ok, the deepest part of the ocean is at a pressure of something like 0.03 gigapascals.

It also predicts another stable compound at 15 GPa. I looked up some figures. The mantle they think these compounds might occur in in the other article has a pressure ranging from around 24 to 135 GPa depending on depth according to https://www.geo.arizona.edu/xtal/geos306/geos306-14.htm. The pressure gets higher the deeper you go because of the increasing weight of all the material above each layer.

 

[Famine]

Dumb science question here. This site says there are no known compounds of helium because it can't chemically bond with other elements:

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Helium#:~:text=Elemental helium does not chemically,helium chemically react with anything.

But this one says disodium helide is a thing.

A stable compound of helium and sodium at high pressure - Nature Chemistry

Helium is generally recognized as being chemically inert. A thermodynamically stable compound of helium and sodium, Na2He, has been predicted computationally and then synthesized at high pressure. It exists as an electride, where strongly localized electrons serve as anions located at the centre...

www.nature.com

Which is incorrect or are they both somehow correct?

Depending on what you call a compound, there's actually quite a few compounds of helium, but it's... complicated.

Generally it's held that helium doesn't make "compounds" per se, but can be compounded with other elements into molecular structures. You can, essentially, force it into crystal structures by exerting extreme pressures (resulting in structures bound by van der Waal's forces alone), or use extreme energies to ionise it to allow for metal-helium ions like HeH+.

I don't know much about Na2He, but from what I've read there it might be a molecule that isn't a compound. I'm sure I've read something previously about helium compounds using multiple halogens (which wouldn't surprise me; "smash it with the most reactive thing we have" is pretty standard stuff).

 

[Pupik]

It's times like this that reminds me that all helium is either made from atom-smashing machines like hot, gigantic interstellar masses or just the product of natural radioactive decay. The latter method is the only reliable way to capture it, but it's tricky to find so we actually had a National Strategic Helium Reserve, just in case. It was only recently privatized.

Gives one a fascinating thought during birthday parties and celebrations.

 

[UKMikey]

It's times like this that reminds me that all helium is either made from atom-smashing machines like hot, gigantic interstellar masses or just the product of natural radioactive decay. The latter method is the only reliable way to capture it, but it's tricky to find so we actually had a National Strategic Helium Reserve, just in case. It was only recently privatized.

Gives one a fascinating thought during birthday parties and celebrations.

I think that's part of the impetus behind the research. If they can drill deep enough to find these compounds (or "compounds") they can extract the helium. Presumably they'll use a very large party balloon to catch it when it escapes

This potential abundance of helium deep within Earth may prove good news, since helium is scarce in Earth's crust. Helium shortages also loom because of the extensive use of the noble gas in everything from party balloons to cooling superconducting magnets, as well as the fact that it is so light, "it continuously escapes into outer space," Miao said. If helium-loaded minerals from Earth's mantle were brought up to the surface, "more likely than not, the helium could diffuse out, and we could trap or contain it," Zurek said.

 

[Liquid]

Are greyhounds and horses aware they are racing, are in a race or are they responding to training stimuli and surprised that others are there as well?

 

[Danoff]

Are greyhounds and horses aware they are racing, are in a race or are they responding to training stimuli and surprised that others are there as well?

Greyhounds and horses are likely aware of something like the concept of a race - get there first, or outrun the one next to you to avoid the danger. This is particularly true for greyhound races which involve chasing something.

So from a very real perspective, especially the greyhounds may realize that they're trying to be the first to the rabbit, even if they know or understand that the rabbit itself is not real, this is instinctually wired.

But do they realize that the entire point is that we care, for its own sake, which of them gets there first? Not because they could eat something or escape something but because faster means something about them? It seems doubtful that they could hold such a concept. Especially not in the extremely bizarre world of a circular race around a track that went nowhere, you have to abstract a lot of things to understand the point of that. Even moreso the idea of crossing an imaginary line that represents the finish of the race.

Obviously that's a very non-scientific answer.

Still though, the emphasis on sexual purity in religion is so bizarre to me

It's manipulation. High control groups or individuals need you to see yourself as unworthy to get you to submit to control. It's not just religion, but abusive spouses and friends as well. If they can get you to question your own judgment, or see yourself as deeply flawed, you're more willing to accept their control. Abused women often have exceptionally low self-esteem, many times even thinking that they deserve the abuse.

One way to get you to see yourself as deeply flawed is to ask you to do something that you cannot do. Have no "impure thoughts", believe something you have no evidence for, etc. Deny your body and mind completely. Your inevitable failure to do this proves to you your unworthiness and helps the control group get you to submit to control. It keeps the meme propagating.

Masturbation is also fixated on for the same reason. If you could just sit in a corner and masturbate and be happy, you wouldn't need religion to tell you who to bomb.

I've linked discussion on this point, time coded to start at the relevant section:



I time coded this one as well, for a segment that talks about the parallels between controlling manipulative people and the same techniques used in religion. He highlights that self-worth is needed to escape these manipulation techniques.

 

[TheCracker]

Are greyhounds and horses aware they are racing, are in a race or are they responding to training stimuli and surprised that others are there as well?

Both horses and dogs are inherently conditioned to run together in groups. Horses as safety-in-numbers prey animals and dogs as hunting packs. So running together in races comes naturally to them. Its instinct.

I could take my two dogs down to the local greyhound track and have them held in the traps until the 'rabbit' is run passed them and they would probably to some extent start to chase after it. They'd no doubt lose interest very quickly, but that chase instinct would kick in initially. In the same way they would start to chase a squirrel in the woods.

A race horse that loses it's rider some way around the track will keep following the rest of the field as that instinct to run with the pack is just ingrained in its genes.

I would guess that with greyhounds if the rabbit was suddenly to stop or slowed down, the greyhounds would probably follow suit because they are up for the chase. Horses just keep running if the pack is still running as the weakest is there to be caught by a predator. I'm not sure if they have an instinct to actually win a race, that comes down to the will of the jockey. If they did have an ingrained will to win, we'd have horse races without jockeys.

A horse race and a greyhound race may look like the same concept, but they are driven by different instincts. One to chase and one to flee.

 

[Pupik]

We run flyball dogs, and we practice over and over, so I just imagine they learn and perform by repetition.

The difference is that greyhounds have less human interaction whereas a horse and rider combination have to work just right.

 

[HenrySwanson]

A fight breaks out in West London, 2 vs 2, all 4 are adults. One of them is getting pounded on the ground. Do you intervene? Call police? Record it on your phone?

 

[UKMikey]

A fight breaks out in West London, 2 vs 2, all 4 are adults. One of them is getting pounded on the ground. Do you intervene? Call police? Record it on your phone?

I hope this isn't happening to you now.

I think I'd do two and three but not one.

 

[Liquid]

A fight breaks out in West London, 2 vs 2, all 4 are adults. One of them is getting pounded on the ground. Do you intervene? Call police? Record it on your phone?

In West London maybe but not East or South London.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I hope this isn't happening to you now.

I think I'd do two and three but not one.

Happened on Thursday.

I stepped in to break it up but afew people said that was the wrong option.

I ask because when there are videos of fights the comments seem to be why didn't someone step in, but if someone does I wonder what the reaction is.

Happened in Acton btw.

 

[Hayden]

A fight breaks out in West London, 2 vs 2, all 4 are adults. One of them is getting pounded on the ground. Do you intervene? Call police? Record it on your phone?

Happened on Thursday.

I stepped in to break it up but afew people said that was the wrong option.

I ask because when there are videos of fights the comments seem to be why didn't someone step in, but if someone does I wonder what the reaction is.

If it has progressed beyond a fair fight, to someone bashing a defenseless person, stepping in is the right thing to do. It could save a life and is a morally decent act.

That doesn’t make it safe, and it’s not always a good idea. If the assailant is intoxicated or incoherent, reasoning and “mate it’s over, you win”, won’t stop them from making you into a victim.

The risk of this, and your ability for self defence should be considered prior to endangering yourself. In the real world, fight or flight probably kicks in, and you should be proud of yourself for doing the right thing under pressure. Not many people actually do in that circumstance.

Grabbing your phone out for anything but calling the police is a lot more questionable to me.

 

[UKMikey]

Grabbing your phone out for anything but calling the police is a lot more questionable to me.

The reason I said call the police and video it is that by the time they responded the incident could be over and without evidence there's not much they can do.

 

[Exorcet]

Grabbing your phone out for anything but calling the police is a lot more questionable to me.

People seem to look down on the whole record with your phone thing, but it provides a record of what happened, which can be extremely useful. If people don't want to step in, recording is the next best thing, at least if they share it.

This might become even more true in the future as video will be easier and easier to fake thanks to AI.

 

[Hayden]

The reason I said call the police and video it is that by the time they responded the incident could be over and without evidence there's not much they can do.

One person recording makes sense, half a dozen people standing around recording, as you often see in these circumstances, doesn’t make any sense at all.

There’s gathering evidence and then there’s spectating and recording a train wreck. I think the 5 extra camera people could be more useful if they attempted to help the victim.


I have a semi-related question. On two seperate occasions (in Melbourne & LA), I have come accross a huge crowd of people looking up. In both instances, a mentally ill person was on top of a building, threatening to end their life.

What makes a person want to stand there and watch this circumstance play out? Do they really want to see the outcome, and are they prepared to deal with it if it’s a bad one?

 

[Exorcet]

One person recording makes sense, half a dozen people standing around recording, as you often see in these circumstances, doesn’t make any sense at all.

The more people recording, the more you can collect. Sure, one might be enough to see everything of relevance, but it also might not.

There’s gathering evidence and then there’s spectating and recording a train wreck. I think the 5 extra camera people could be more useful if they attempted to help the victim.

But can people intervene in every situation? Sometimes they can, and in those cases where the risk to them is low, I think they should, but this may not always be the case. More witnesses may also put more pressure on someone committing a crime as well. It's harder to grab one and smash one phone than it is twenty.

I have a semi-related question. On two seperate occasions (in Melbourne & LA), I have come accross a huge crowd of people looking up. In both instances, a mentally ill person was on top of a building, threatening to end their life.

What makes a person want to stand there and watch this circumstance play out? Do they really want to see the outcome, and are they prepared to deal with it if it’s a bad one?

I don't know for sure. One possible explanation is that it's a novel experience, which trigger curiosity, which exists because it can lead us to learn things. That's very simplified of course, but I think it fits as a possible explanation. If you see something unusual (not to mention a situation where a life is possibly at stake) it grabs you attention, and genetically, that is by design.

 

[TB]

One person recording makes sense, half a dozen people standing around recording, as you often see in these circumstances, doesn’t make any sense at all.

Different perspectives can make all the difference.

 

[Daz555]

A fight breaks out in West London, 2 vs 2, all 4 are adults. One of them is getting pounded on the ground. Do you intervene? Call police? Record it on your phone?

The temptation is to get involved (that was my gut instinct here) but I lost a friend in such an incident - he was stabbed whilst trying to save a guy from a beating. That really made me consider what we should be risking our lives for.

 

[HenrySwanson]

In West London maybe but not East or South London.

Not even Richmond?

 

[DG_Silva]

This might sound like a really dumb question, but in countries like the US where there is little or no national health service, who foots the bill for medical treatment needed if you're an innocent victim of crime, such as a stabbing/shooting, assault, etc.? What about if you were caught in a fire which was deliberate?

I can't believe it's the victim who would incur the cost.

 

[Joey D]

This might sound like a really dumb question, but in countries like the US where there is little or no national health service, who foots the bill for medical treatment needed if you're an innocent victim of crime, such as a stabbing/shooting, assault, etc.? What about if you were caught in a fire which was deliberate?

I can't believe it's the victim who would incur the cost.

America has a social medicine network, and it's massive. Over 65 million Americans are covered under it. As for who pays, it's going to vary by state. In Michigan, the Health and Human Services has a compensation fund that covers things like medical bills, loss of wages, counseling, rehab, and crime scene clean-up. Various non-profits help offset the costs and many provide counseling as well.

Around 92% of people have some form of health insurance, so those insurance carriers also pay for medical stuff. Depending on where the crime occurred, other insurances come into play as well like homeowners and auto. If a crime happened in a business, their insurance will likely foot the bill.

After all of that, if there are still expenses, you typically file a civil case and sue someone to recover the money.

 

[TexRex]

This might sound like a really dumb question, but in countries like the US where there is little or no national health service, who foots the bill for medical treatment needed if you're an innocent victim of crime, such as a stabbing/shooting, assault, etc.? What about if you were caught in a fire which was deliberate?

I can't believe it's the victim who would incur the cost.

In the US, each state has some kind of compensation fund which kicks in when other resources (apart from individual assets) have been exhausted, and while they vary on a by-state basis, the compensation is likely to include coverage for medical services but also counseling and lost wages. Who ultimately pays for it also varies.

 

[Pupik]

Failing all that, you start a GoFundMe page, if some other shyster hasn't already done so.

 

[TexRex]

A woman is a human adult born with two X chromosomes.

Period.

Transgender men are not women, no matter how much they want to be, no matter how much hormone treatment or surgery they have received.

If a human has a Y chromosome, whether it's paired with an X chromosome or whether they have extra chromosomes in XYY or XXY combination, they are male. A male with XYY may go his entire life unaware of the xtra Y chromosome as it produces no developmental issues. A male with an extra X chromosome will probably show developmental problems such as near or total sterility, poor genital development, even breasts, but they still carry a Y chromosome, have a penis and not a vagina, and are still male, and cannot grow up to be a woman.

I expect to be flamed for this viewpoint, but seriously... this isn't difficult. A woman has 2 X chromosomes.

What drives this sort of idiotic, detached-from-reality conservative bitchfit? I mean not merely the deliberate and deceitful conflation of gender and biological sex, but also the wholsale disregard for the reality that biological intersex conditions exist? I kind of get, as idiotic as it is, the desire to other disfavored groups for their views on sexuality and gender, but why is it necessary to close your eyes, cover your ears and shout "LALALALALALALA" when nature is so clearly a complicated thing?

 

[Liquid]

What drives this sort of idiotic, detached-from-reality conservative bitchfit? [That] the wholsale disregard for the reality that biological intersex conditions exist?

It isn't taught in school. That makes it hard to 'unlearn' what is commonly and widely thought and what has generally been 'known' for centuries. It's complicated to teach as well, lots of what abouts and whys would make it such an arduous task, I don't imagine it will be easy for it to gain widespread acceptance. One day, though...

 

[TexRex]

It isn't taught in school. That makes it hard to 'unlearn' what is commonly and widely thought and what has generally been 'known' for centuries. It's complicated to teach as well, lots of what abouts and whys would make it such an arduous task, I don't imagine it will be easy for it to gain widespread acceptance. One day, though...

I think that's maybe part of it? It doesn't really square with the distrust of education and disdain for particular lesson plans that conservatives frequently harbor. Then there's the matter that conservatives frequently accept as gospel (I've chosen this word deliberately) that which isn't taught in school, even--and especially?*--when it's laughably unsupported by evidence.

*Kind of getting back to the perpetuating of obvious falsehoods that seems so rampant among conservatives.

Edit: I realize I often shoot down answers and I don't mean to. I think a big problem is I'm not asking questions with a firm scientific explanation and instead I'm trying to understand human behavior.

 

[Pupik]

Simple: it's easy to learn things when you need to learn, difficult to learn when you're not paying attention, but un-learning is the most difficult of all.