I could argue that ethanol has 1/3 the latent heat of vaporization of water, and would boil off 3 times quicker. However, what ultimately matters is the rate of heat transfer, so my nitpick may be irrelevant.
I'm looking for a language with the performance of C++ and the ease of Python, and I've been constantly told that Rust fits that spec.
I'll look into Zig, but I'm hesitant about using languages that nobody has ever heard of. Especially for a project that I might release as open-source.
>"Today, there's a different language with ugly historical baggage that enjoys a strong following, *notably amongst people that don't identify as programmers*. *That language is Python*."
>"Python is the new BASIC because *Python is the language that non-programmers always seem to use*"
>"If even a *Python-hater like me* defaults to using Python, then I think it's pretty clear that Python has taken over the world, just as BASIC once did."
1) As a Python fan, I consider this hate speech.
2) I have yet to encounter a software development kit like Visual Basic that makes it easy to write executable files with a GUI.
By all means, feel free to fact check our textbooks, news broadcasts, and statements from official sources.
But when I log on to social media to rant about how UFOs are time-traveling humans, I don't want a teal-colored, official-looking div element to alert the world that the online version of my personal expression is objectively wrong.
There is a semantic issue here that's bothering me: the word "Fact" is a contronym.
I was taught in elementary school that facts don't need to be true to be a "fact". Nearly 3 decades ago, I was told that "facts" are either true or false, as opposed to "opinions" which are neither.
Then, as time moved on, I encountered what appeared to be a bifurcation in the English language, where half the people I encountered defined "fact" as a true statement, and the other half defined "fact" as any statement about the external world that did not rely on somebody's internal state of mind to make sense.
I challenge all of you to perform a quick experiment with Google.
Step 1: Google "Fact vs Opinion". Skim the results.
Step 2: Google "Fact definition" or "Fact meaning". Skim the results.
Step 3: Compare and contrast.
You are given a list of color names, written in font colors that are incongruous with the written word. E.g. "Red" will be written in a blue font, and "Green" will be written in a yellow font.
You have to say the font color and not the written word.
It's challenging, but it's yet another application where going cross-eyed confers an advantage.
The difference is that we know for a fact that the proper implementation works for integers up to 2^31, whereas the improper implementation deceived us into thinking that the code would work in situations where the code actually doesn't work.
I find it valuable to understand when my code will crash.
I'm not going to try to predict the shape of a protein from a chain of amino acids. I'm not going to try to predict the behavior of a human cell from Schrodinger's equation.
My project's scope is more along the lines of:
1. Taking a look at Roche's list of all biochemical pathways in the human body[0].
2. Creating a 3D model of a human body, assuming that all the molecules in the body interact only in the way that the chart prescribes.
3. Create a database of symptoms and sensations in the body, and use the 3D model to determine all the possible ways that the biochemical pathways could go awry in order to create the ailment.
The way I envision it, the model is simply going after low-hanging fruit.
At this time, I mean every hormone and protein flowing in the bloodstream, along with the state of every single cell.
Essentially, enough detail to get a list of symptoms and bodily sensations, and predict the outcome of any potential blood test or urinalysis. Or, alternatively, enough detail to take the results of a blood test/urinalysis, and predict the state of every single tissue in the body.
Interesting information... it prompted me to do more research.
According to wikipedia, Vitamin B-9 is broken down by our bodies into a family of compounds called "THF", which:
1. Help synthesize DNA,
2. Help repair/modify DNA,
3. Help create the amino acid "Methionine", which is a precursor to other amino acids, and is thus important for the synthesis of many proteins inside the body,
4. Activate Vitamin B12.
A deficiency in Vitamin B-9 can lead to a loss of appetite, weakness, heart palpitations, headaches, irritability, and anemia. Also interesting to note that a deficiency in Vitamin B-12 will cause the body to overcompensate and convert a large portion of Vitamin B-9 into the form that metabolizes Vitamin B12, which leads to a condition that mimics a deficiency of Vitamin B9.
One of these days, when I have enough free time, I want to develop a particle-level simulation of the human body, so that medical students, doctors, and curious laymen can see these processes in action on their personal computers. If I combine that with an affordable at-home blood test/diagnostic system, we will have a mechanism to bring affordable healthcare to every single person in the country. And perhaps a reliable method to find the true cause of a patient's depression, before prescribing them SSRI's or other psychiatric drugs.
>how can I enter someone's house, shop or car knowing that there will be no less than a half dozen devices listening to my voice or shooting a picture of me without asking?
N95 filters are rated based on how many 0.3-micron particles they can block. They are rated for that particle size because that particle size is the hardest particle size to block and therefore serves as a proper test of the filter's efficiency.
If you look at a graph of the blocking efficiency of an N95 filter vs particle size, that graph is a curvy "V" shape, with the bottom of that "V" being at 0.3 microns.
HEPA filters block particles smaller than it's rated size, and they block those particles more easily than larger particles because of Brownian motion and the physics of electrostatically capturing particles.
On the other hand, TV, radio, the printing press, and rock-and-roll music have all been called a "monumental change", "unlike anything before it", in the past.
An "unprecedented new thing" comes around every generation, and every time, there are fancy arguments touted about why this unprecedented new thing is unlike all the other "unprecedented new things" in the past.
For what it's worth, I'll say this: when I watch TV or a movie, it appears that the producers, writers, and set designers work hard to make sure that my attention is captured during every moment of the theatrical event. Movie studios perform A/B testing to see what kind of cinematic techniques are more engaging to audiences. Music studios use computer software to mathematically model what kind of music the masses will enjoy. Newspapers engage in yellow journalism.
All I am pleading for is a higher standard of proof and some contrarianism when people claim that whatever modern thing nowadays is unprecedented even among all the other unprecedented things of the past.