Goddard Guryon

No love for Star Wars? :(

Yup it seems crazy to me how deep insights one needs to have to be able to, say, connect the dots between compression and machine learning. And now it looks to me like he has done a lot of the foundational work in these fields. Super cool stuff

Too lazy to check, but is this the Rivest from the RSA algorithm?

Like you said, there’s a metric ton of steps involved in the overall process, and our understanding of each of these ‘levels’ of organization varies quite a bit. Closest to my personal expertise is the sub-cellular and cellular level, for which I would refer you books or papers in developmental biology, developmental genetics, and epigenetics. I can give you a couple bloopers to get you excited though:

When it comes to deciding where different organs will form (again, from a sub-cellular level), it essentially starts from a concentration gradient of certain proteins/chemicals inside the zygotic cell. This gradient then determines the level of activation of other proteins, each level then leading to different biochemical cascades which, once more cells have formed from the zygote, determine which organ systems will come from them. Messing around with this concentration gradient can, thus, dramatically affect an organism’s development, leading to, for example, a body with just ‘left’ organs on both halves, just ‘top’ organs on both halves, missing an entire organ system (like circulatory system and heart) and so on.

A more or less similar process occurs to determine the shape of organs. As a simple example, when some animals with regenerative capabilities (like axolotls) lose a limb, they are able to regrow the limb to the exact same length as before. Turns out, each cell on the periphery of their limb has a certain concentration of receptor proteins on its surface, which acts as a molecular ‘signature’ of that cell’s position in the limb. These signatures provide information on how far to grow the limb for regeneration, and some chemicals, lile retinol, can even override these signatures and fool the organism’s body into regrowing the limb from scratch on top of the place of regeneration.

I hope these examples give you an introduction to the mechanisms involved. There’s obviously a lot more involved, so I would again highly recommend textbooks and research papers if you’re interested.

Last I checked (which was some time ago), pandoc-bin doesn’t require the haskell dependencies. I saved quite some installation time (and screen space during installation) by switching.

Chemists are just bags of chemicals talking about chemicals

It’ll get more complex than that. I’m no expert, but I’m guessing you have to consider the depth of the crust at your location, type of soil and the distance from (and time since) the last closest volcanic eruption, possibly distance from the nearest tectonic boundary, maybe even tidal forces (assuming they have a considerable impact on magma being pushed out, but this may be a bit too far)

Paint it as a chemical reaction in order to understand its equilibrium state. We basically have:

H₂O (gas) ⇌ H₂O (liquid)

By sealing the jar with the water already boiling, we initialize the system to be in a state with equal(ish) amount of both liquid and gas. Then we allow the system to cool down so that the liquid water is no longer boiling. Now the system sits at an equilibrium between liquid and gas states.

Now, when we put ice on top of the jar, the water vapor condenses and gets converted to liquid, pushing the equilibrium to the right. But this decreases the overall pressure in the system since fewer particles now occupy the volume above the liquid’s surface. This is essentially the system trying to pull itself back towards the original equilibrium i.e. towards the left of the equation, which it does by making more water vapor i.e. boiling.

This reaction-like picture helps in visualizing the system better in some cases, so I tried to add it alongside the pressure dynamics scenario. You may be interested in Le Chatelier’s principle if you prefer this.

I’m not sure what exactly you’re looking for as an answer here. I’ll say that instead of looking for alternatives of science itself, we can list through the central tenets of science and then explore perspectives that counter one or more of those tenets. I’m not sure of the generally accepted list of tenets, so I’ll try coming up with what I think those are:

• observation: to understand the world around you, you need to be able to see/hear/feel it. Without this, you’re basically making up whatever you feel like (one could argue that the scientific method begins with a hypothesis followed by observations to test it, but the hypothesis itself has to be based in reality, which again requires prior observation of reality)
• logical reasoning: once you make observations, you try to make sense of them. You do this by applying logic on your observations. Alternative worldviews would say that this logical reasoning has no inherent advantage over, say, not having it, but those worldviews would be useless themselves because a) as far as we can tell, the world does follow logic; “the world around us doesn’t have to make sense, yet it does”, and b) if we were to still accept alternative worldviews that throw away logic, it would get us nowhere. Theories that disregard logic have no consistency and thus no utility whatsoever. You can say this about most (if not all) religions: one of the arguments I’ve heard a lot against atheism is that science is useless because it’s ‘incomplete’, hence God. But that essentially stops science in its tracks: saying we should throw away science and blindly accept any faith solely because science hasn’t solved everything already actively harms science from making progress, and the religions being presented as the alternatives don’t answer the same questions satisfactorily (or consistently) either.
• skepticism: this may partially overlap with the previous one. A huge part of the scientific method is to not blindly accept whatever is presented as model, or even observation, of the world around us. If an observation is objectively good, it should be possible to make basically the same observation by different people. If a model of reality is objectively good, it should match with the reality regardless of who tries to apply it. An alternative of this, like before, would be blind faith and superstition. Things like ‘miracles’ are not scientific because they cannot be (or at least have not been) repeatedly observed under controlled conditions. God as a model of reality is not scientific because it does not have much predictive power (as far as we can tell based on ‘prophecies’).

There may be more ways an alternative theory could try to counter science, but I think these points should give you an idea.

When the water vapor inside the jar comes in thermal contact with the ice outside, it condenses and precipitates. This decreases the vapor pressure inside the jar, which then causes the water to boil.

Boiling is not just a temperature-based phenomenon, it’s also a pressure-based one: a water body maintains an equilibrium between liquid water and water vapor right above its surface. If you remove the water vapor from above the surface, it decreases the vapor pressure and shifts the equilibrium away from the liquid state, which is essentially boiling. Note that this is different from evaporation since the liquid water is not using heat from an external source to vaporize. You can also see this in daily life, for example, in that water boils at a different temperature on mountains due to pressure difference.

…username checks out

I guess that depends on what you were testing. If you were changing your email ID on one of your social media or other accounts, then it may become a bit of an issue, as compared to just sending yourself an email from your gmail account