Dumb Questions Thread

[Barra333]

Is it all or mostly carbon just arranged in a particular way?

Simplest answer is yes. Mostly carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. The DNA bases (ATCGU) are all structures of those 4, cell walls are C,O,H. Everything else is a derivative of the above. Then there are the other elements (eg Magnesium, Calcium, Potassium etc) in various amount that all play a role.

 

[Liquid]

Simplest answer is yes. Mostly carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. The DNA bases (ATCGU) are all structures of those 4, cell walls are C,O,H. Everything else is a derivative of the above. Then there are the other elements (eg Magnesium, Calcium, Potassium etc) in various amount that all play a role.

Thanks. That's fascinating to me, someone who just doesn't get it. How those elements can make so many different things and exist in so many different ways.

 

[Exorcet]

Thanks. That's fascinating to me, someone who just doesn't get it. How those elements can make so many different things and exist in so many different ways.

A lot of it is carbon's place in the period table. Electrons arrange themselves in shells (areas where they orbit*) around the atomic nucleus and the most stable configuration of shells is to have those shells completely filled (or empty). This is why noble gases are so resistant to chemical reactions, they have stable electron shells. All the other atoms want to imitate the noble gas shells by gaining or losing electrons. Carbon is situated such that it is half filled, and it has the correct number of electrons to fill another carbon atom's shell, which allows it to make complex structures.

I wanted to go into more detail originally, but in typing that out I realized that I haven't worked through any chemistry in a long time. What I typed below should have the general idea correct, but the details may be wrong.

Carbon has six electrons. Two are in the 1s shell close to the nucleus, these are tightly bound and fill the shell. Two more are in the 2s shell and the last two are in the 2p shell. So the six electrons are arranged with two in the 1 shell and and four in the 2 shell. In order for carbon to have balanced shells like the nearest noble gases, helium and neon, it can either lose 4 electrons (give up all the p electrons) or gain 4 electrons (fill the p shell).

Since carbon has 4 electrons that makes it a good partner for itself and as a consequence, carbon is able to make very long chains by bonding with other carbon atoms. This allows it to make a large variety of compounds and even small structures. So carbon along with a handful of other elements can create thousands upon thousands of compounds.

*The atomic world is strange and orbit isn't an accurate term, but it's good enough for this discussion.

 

[TexRex]

Why are conservatives so wont to deny or disparage the consent of others?

Is denigration, including by law, of the consent of an individual to pregnancy really that removed from the denigration of consent by individuals, which necessarily includes minors, to sexual contact?

 

[ScottPuss20]

What's the deal with electric cars after their battery dies?

 

[MatskiMonk]

What's the deal with electric cars after their battery dies?

Most likely the car will meet the requirements for 85-95% reusability, recyclability, recoverability as legislated, same with all cars that are homologated for sale in the EU.

 

[TexRex]

What's the deal with...

 

[Joey D]

What's the deal with electric cars after their battery dies?

EV batteries are replaceable and recyclable. They're no different from ICE vehicles; when the engine fails, you swap in a new one and continue driving, or you scrap the car. Battery costs are similar to modern engine costs, too, as the labour is comparable.

 

[Liquid]

There is a Dumb Car Questions thread in CIG where members with better topical knowledge who don't hang around here might help.

 

[ScottPuss20]

EV batteries are replaceable and recyclable. They're no different from ICE vehicles; when the engine fails, you swap in a new one and continue driving, or you scrap the car. Battery costs are similar to modern engine costs, too, as the labour is comparable.

So they aren't like smartphones?

There is a Dumb Car Questions thread in CIG where members with better topical knowledge who don't hang around here might help.

I forgot about that thread but considering what I've said within this sub-forum, I thought it was appropriate to continue the discussion here.

 

[UKMikey]

.

 

[MIE1992]

Is "true love" just a meme?

 

[Exorcet]

Is "true love" just a meme?

True love meaning what?

 

[Sum1s2pid]

True love meaning what?

"Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world, except for a nice M.L.T. A mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich when the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They’re so perky. I love that. But that’s not what he said. He distinctly said, ‘To blave.’ And as we all know, ‘to blave’ means ‘to bluff.’ So, you’re probably playing cards and he cheated…"

 

[Liquid]

How many of other people's photos do you think you are in without knowing?

More of a shower thought than a dumb question but it's something I think about a lot.

 

[Pupik]

How many of other people's photos do you think you are in without knowing?

More of a shower thought than a dumb question but it's something I think about a lot.

I wonder this a bunch when I go to theme parks, where it's common to be around many people taking snapshots, and generally not be concerned that you're fully or partially in their frame.

If people archive all of their photos, and have it machine-read and matched to other known photos of yourself, it's conceivable that individuals could be inadvertently "tracked". But assembling that sort of random collage of photos might take 20-100+ years, by then we've probably given up so much tracking anyhow. But we're pretty much here, now; one day, it may inadvertently solve a crime (or get someone innocent arrested).

In short, I bet I'm in at least 1000 other folks' photos from about 100 visits to theme parks and high-tourist areas, and who knows how many people I've sat behind with respect to selfie-takers on airlines. Probably the nicest way to get out it is to offer to take someone else's photo or group. (Warning: this may involve talking to people.)

I accidentally did it at least once; thought I was taking a photo of the stage at the Georgia Aquarium but couldn't tell I had it reversed due to the polarized glasses.

 

[Liquid]

Being anywhere touristy would significantly increase that number.

 

[CTznOfTime]

With the ease and wide availability of Ai and Google search nowadays, would this thread then die off ? Or can we use Ai and post here the answer from Ai to our dumb question ?

What do you think ? Let me ask this question to Ai...

Edit:
Maybe ask Ai about this: is Full Ai the end of humanity?

Full AI - The End of Humanity?

This is a fascinating interview for the BBC with Stephen Hawking... his headline thought is in the thread title, of course. What are your thoughts?

www.gtplanet.net

 

[HenrySwanson]

Stealing this from a Friends episode:

Is there such a thing as a completely selfless action?

 

[Meythia]

Is there such a thing as a completely selfless action?

The selfless action qualifies as a selfish action in itself "like giving away all your unnecessary possesions to someone in need" coud be selfish as you now have more free space, or could be selfish because you did it to feel better.
With this attitude the answer would be no.

But in my opinion the answer is yes, because I dont look at the sideeffect that benefits me but instead at the action that I did in for a selfless reason, or did I do it to gain more space and instead of throwing all things away I gave it someone who can use it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The selfless action qualifies as a selfish action in itself "like giving away all your unnecessary possesions to someone in need" coud be selfish as you now have more free space, or could be selfish because you did it to feel better.
With this attitude the answer would be no.

But in my opinion the answer is yes, because I dont look at the sideeffect that benefits me but instead at the action that I did in for a selfless reason, or did I do it to gain more space and instead of throwing all things away I gave it someone who can use it.

How do you "ignore" the beneficial effects?

Is it before giving the possessions away, or the feelings after you've done that?

 

[Meythia]

How do you "ignore" the beneficial effects?

Is it before giving the possessions away, or the feelings after you've done that?

It is not about the "ignore", but about the correlation between a) and b).
Merely trying to find an example for explaining it is already proving difficult enough, so the answer stems from:
would I do the same even though I dont benefit from it at all and my "feelings" were totally indifferent? -> Yes? -> Selfless

Is this possible? Difficult to make a point here, and it is easy to say "that was selfish by the description you gave first".
Like helping a friend moving from A to B without requesting any kind of compensation, putting 1000 miles onto your car.
To me this is the closest to selfless you can get, and doing it simply because your friend asked isnt unreasonable to me.

 

[Blitz24]

It is not about the "ignore", but about the correlation between a) and b).
Merely trying to find an example for explaining it is already proving difficult enough, so the answer stems from:
would I do the same even though I dont benefit from it at all and my "feelings" were totally indifferent? -> Yes? -> Selfless

Is this possible? Difficult to make a point here, and it is easy to say "that was selfish by the description you gave first".
Like helping a friend moving from A to B without requesting any kind of compensation, putting 1000 miles onto your car.
To me this is the closest to selfless you can get, and doing it simply because your friend asked isnt unreasonable to me.

You could argue that if you were to save someone's life and die in the process you would be committing a selfless act. However that might only be because we cannot define self in death.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You could argue that if you were to save someone's life and die in the process you would be committing a selfless act. However that might only be because we cannot define self in death.

I'm struggling to think of any other examples that fit the bill.

 

[TheCracker]

You could argue that if you were to save someone's life and die in the process you would be committing a selfless act. However that might only be because we cannot define self in death.

Depends on whether you knew for certain you would die in the process or not. If there was a predicted chance of survival, for the one doing the saving, then there would be a probably unconscious element of wanting to appear as, or be seen as being, a hero.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Depends on whether you knew for certain you would die in the process or not. If there was a predicted chance of survival, for the one doing the saving, then there would be a probably unconscious element of wanting to appear as, or be seen as being, a hero.

And building on that....

What if they knew they would die, but had the firm belief that they were going to "paradise" after.

 

[TheCracker]

And building on that....

What if they knew they would die, but had the firm belief that they were going to "paradise" after.

The only scenario i could imagine to the original statement would be if a hermit who lived in the middle of nowhere one day comes across a lone hiker stuck on a high ledge/drowning in a lake, etc etc, and knowingly risks their own life to save the stranger. They most likely wouldn't welcome the publicity or the thanks or even the acknowledgement for doing the deed, due to their chosen singular lifestyle and shunning of society as a whole. It would be as selfless an act as i could think, but its an exceptional set of circumstances.

 

[Danoff]

And building on that....

What if they knew they would die, but had the firm belief that they were going to "paradise" after.

I think you can die in an act in service to an idea that you care more about than your life, and so it is still selfish in some sense.

Altruism is rooted in instinct. We see it in other animals, like the bird that calls out, drawing attention to itself as prey and increasing its chances of being eaten, to warn the flock. You're instinctually designed to do this because your tribe is presumed to carry many of the same genes that you do, and natural selection is actually about which genes survive, not which individuals do. So your instinctual altruism is throwing you the individual under the bus in service to your genes surviving in other individuals.

Is it selfless? If you're compelled by instinct to some kind of personally dangerous altruism, that doesn't actually seem like it's benefitting you personally. But I think every human that was compelled in this way would state that it's for selfish reasons. For example, the santa clause guy that run to the church to stop the mass shooter (this was in central texas I think). He would probably say that he just really cares about his neighbors and was willing to die to save them. Or to stand up to a thug. So even if it was ultimately instinctual, it's hard to see it being identified as purely selfless, at least in humans.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I think you can die in an act in service to an idea that you care more about than your life, and so it is still selfish in some sense.

Altruism is rooted in instinct. We see it in other animals, like the bird that calls out, drawing attention to itself as prey and increasing its chances of being eaten, to warn the flock. You're instinctually designed to do this because your tribe is presumed to carry many of the same genes that you do, and natural selection is actually about which genes survive, not which individuals do. So your instinctual altruism is throwing you the individual under the bus in service to your genes surviving in other individuals.

Is it selfless? If you're compelled by instinct to some kind of personally dangerous altruism, that doesn't actually seem like it's benefitting you personally. But I think every human that was compelled in this way would state that it's for selfish reasons. For example, the santa clause guy that run to the church to stop the mass shooter (this was in central texas I think). He would probably say that he just really cares about his neighbors and was willing to die to save them. Or to stand up to a thug. So even if it was ultimately instinctual, it's hard to see it being identified as purely selfless, at least in humans.

And that makes me think, just how powerful is this drive to pass on the best genes. We say that our brains make it possible for us to have a consciousness and reason, therefore we have control over our acts. But what if we are deluding ourselves?

 

[Danoff]

And that makes me think, just how powerful is this drive to pass on the best genes. We say that our brains make it possible for us to have a consciousness and reason, therefore we have control over our acts. But what if we are deluding ourselves?

Is this a free will question? You can take this all the way down the rabbit hole. But the initial answer is that you can control yourself rationally despite emotional or instinctual responses supplied by your genes.