drawerair

If 1 asks me re the best way to know re the Chernobyl disaster, I'll suggest this. 1 of my top series.

I asked myself "How about the Fukushima Daiichi disaster?" I had 3 ideas –

1. I found an eli5 explainer using Google.

2. Plainly difficult's vid (the best for me)

3. The days

Plainly difficult's vid is more detailed than the eli5 explainer so if you're in no rush, please watch.

I was at the 20:00 mark of The days episode 4 when I stopped due to its slowness.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27047758

I read Feynman lectures on physics Volume 1 Chapter 37 for the 2nd time. It has the best explanation of the 2-slits experiment for me. 1 of the factors behind my <3 for physics is how amazing the universe is. The wave-particle duality is so amazing.

Chapters 1–36 aren't prequisites for Chapter 37. You can read 37 at once.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27047758

I read Feynman lectures on physics Volume 1 Chapter 37 for the 2nd time. It has the best explanation of the 2-slits experiment for me. 1 of the factors behind my <3 for physics is how amazing the universe is. The wave-particle duality is so amazing.

Chapters 1–36 aren't prequisites for Chapter 37. You can read 37 at once.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27047758

I read Feynman lectures on physics Volume 1 Chapter 37 for the 2nd time. It has the best explanation of the 2-slits experiment for me. 1 of the factors behind my <3 for physics is how amazing the universe is. The wave-particle duality is so amazing.

Chapters 1–36 aren't prequisites for Chapter 37. You can read 37 at once.

I read Feynman lectures on physics Volume 1 Chapter 37 for the 2nd time. It has the best explanation of the 2-slits experiment for me. 1 of the factors behind my <3 for physics is how amazing the universe is. The wave-particle duality is so amazing. I like that Feynman wrote that there was no established idea deeper than quantum mechanics. There's still no established idea; quantum mechanics is a pillar of physics. I like that he talked a bit re hidden variables. I just wanna add that a hidden-variable idea must be nonlocal.

Chapters 1–36 aren't prerequisites for Chapter 37. You can read 37 at once.

With how big online betting has been in advertising, I'm :o that Youtube will do it. But why exclude online sports betting and in-person betting? Ban everything.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26503399

Posting here hoping for a physics-based reply.

I viewed a vid re power versus torque in vehicles. My understanding is that power is torque multiplied by angular velocity. Given an amount of power, a high-torque vehicle won't go very fast. A very fast vehicle won't tow a very massive load.

I related it to my little knowledge re stick shift. Gear 1 is used to move a stopped vehicle or for low speeds. Does gear 1 mean max torque and lowest angular velocity? I imagine you need a high torque to overcome static friction. Does gear 2 mean a dip in torque and a rise in angular velocity? Does the max gear mean lowest torque and max angular velocity? When I was young, a driver said one can carefully switch from gear 1 to 2 then 2 to 3 (and so on) on a wide road with very few surrounding vehicles. He said this was the way to increase the velocity and a high gear generally meant more fuel-efficient.

Please correct me if any of the above is wrong.

I googled. Here's what I read –

" 'Revolutions per minute' is how many revolutions the engine itself is making per minute. The gear ratios then translate revolutions of the engine into revolutions of your tires (more or less). Lower gear means lower tire revolutions per engine revolution, but also the tires are easier to turn.

"So when the car is going slower, meaning it requires more force to accelerate, you want lower gears. As the car speeds up, you need less force to go faster or maintain that speed, so you switch to a higher gear, sacrificing power for more efficient use of your engine."

I didn't ask an llm to avoid hallucinations.

Posting here hoping for a physics-based reply. Not 1 with so many physics equations. I've just disliked opinions that've probably contradicted reality.

I viewed a vid re power versus torque in vehicles. My understanding is that power is torque multiplied by angular velocity. Given an amount of power, a high-torque vehicle doesn't have a very high top velocity. A high-velocity vehicle won't tow a very massive load.

I related it to my little knowledge re stick shift. Gear 1 is used to move a stopped vehicle or for low speeds. Does gear 1 mean max torque and lowest angular velocity? I think you need a high torque to overcome static friction. Does gear 2 mean a dip in torque and a rise in angular velocity? Does the max gear mean lowest torque and max angular velocity? When I was young, a driver said one can carefully switch from gear 1 ➡️ 2 then 2 ➡️ 3 then 3 ➡️ 4 (and so on) on a wide road with very few surrounding vehicles. He said it'd up the velocity and a high gear generally meant more fuel-efficient.

Please correct me if any of the above is wrong.

I googled. Here's what I read –

"Revolutions per minute" is how many revolutions the engine itself is making per minute. The gear ratios then translate revolutions of the engine into revolutions of your tires (more or less). Lower gear means lower tire revolutions per engine revolution, but also the tires are easier to turn.

So when the car is going slower, meaning it requires more force to accelerate, you want lower gears. As the car speeds up, you need less force to go faster or maintain that speed, so you switch to a higher gear, sacrificing power for more efficient use of your engine.

I didn't ask an llm to avoid hallucinations.

Anyone here use Sync for Lemmy? This week it's so slow and has many errors for me. I went to the Sync community. I learned that other Sync users had issues too. The last update was March 2024. Had to download another app. :(

My 📱 is the Samsung a70. I picked Voyager.

I wanted to decide whether or not I'd find Tenet great, so I watched for the 3rd time. Here are the disappointments I'm thinking about that made it less than great –

1. Protagonist and Neil going up to Priya's home was baloney. A contraption that safely projectile-propels a human is complex. Their small contraption was unrealistic.
2. The launch angle was key. A small error would result in Protagonist going to the building's wall instead of the balcony. Their projectile way was theoretically extremely hard and they made it look so easy. (I'm not considering the g's. A human can only take so many g's before passing out or damaging his organs. g's have been almost always ignored in flicks. I'm OK with it.)
3. When they went up to Priya's home, how did they brake?
4. Protagonist knocked out some goons so easy. Even a very casual Ufc viewer knows it's not that easy to knock out someone.
5. They must make a 🔥 to start the Oslo vault's emergency process. Surely there was an easier way to make a 🔥 than crashing the ✈ into the building. Also, crashing a ✈ doesn't guarantee a big 🔥.
6. When the handlers of the piece of Algorithm saw the surrounding vehicles, why didn't they ask for aid? It was like they just awaited the other vehicles to squeeze their vehicle.

Of course Tenet has boons. I don't wanna make this too long so I won't write much re the boons. Just wanna say that Protagonist and Neil's friendship was so inspiring and Nolan showed it throughout Tenet sans making dramatic friendship scenes. Props to Nolan.

Collapse and Larl were ddos'ed, per Spirit. I didn't know it so I viewed this 👍 explanation. I suggest you watch if you're interested.

If you want the quick info, here – A distributed denial of service is an attempt to mess with the normal ops of an online service (like a site or an app) by overwhelming it with repeated auto requests for data from many sources.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26244858

The 2 best Youtube vids re electricity for me –

y2u.be/bHIhgxav9LY

y2u.be/oI_X2cMHNe0

I graduated electrical engineering in 2015 and I didn’t know the energy flow and the surface charges that Derek explained. Maybe I didn’t listen closely when my electromagnetism mentor taught Poynting vector. But I'm sure no mentor of mine talked re surface charges. These wow me –

1. In the Poynting vector simulation, the energy flowed outside the wire, not in the wire.

2. The cross product of the electric and magnetic fields is the key thing. The electrons in the wire don’t carry the energy.

3. Energy can flow even if we don't have a loop of wire.

4. The 🔋 is the shepherd. The surface charges are the sheep dogs. The electrons are the 🐑. (The electric field accelerates the electrons.)

5. Ohm’s law, mesh analysis and nodal analysis are 👍 but don’t cover all the cases. You must use Maxwell’s equations if you want or need a high level of accuracy. I wonder if using quantum electrodynamics is better. Or no since we’re not dealing with a quantum system?