WoodScientist

joined 1 month ago
[–] WoodScientist@hexbear.net 14 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

No. Because you are not the same person.

No man can walk through the same river twice, for it is not the same river, and it is not the same man.

[–] WoodScientist@hexbear.net 10 points 15 hours ago

I don't know. I had mine origamied into a vulva. I highly recommend it.

[–] WoodScientist@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Exactly. Consider one observation about Earth life. We know that life started pretty early in Earth's history. It happened within a few hundred million years of Earth no longer being a ball of molten slag. But I can explain that observation with completely opposite conclusions:

  1. Life may be easy to start. It happened so soon, that life must form nearly anywhere once conditions are sufficient for it. Simple bacterial life is an inevitable process. It's likely our own solar system is brimming with life, with every deep Martian aquifer and outer system ice shell moon overflowing with simple life forms at a minimum.

  2. Life may be incredibly difficult to start. You'll have to scour a billion galaxies before you find a planet with life as complex as Earth has. But we can only exist on one of those lucky oddballs. The only chance complex intelligent life has of forming on a planet is if everything goes absolutely perfect. If the evolution of life were delayed by a billion years, we wouldn't exist. Within a billion years the warming Sun will boil away Earth's oceans. Our evolutionary time frame is freakishly fast compared to the average. The fact that life started so early is simply a selection effect. We can only exist on a world that evolved complex intelligent life, and that required breakneck pace evolution.

Even this one observation, that life started early, can be explained with completely opposite conclusions. The simple truth is, as you note, we can't know anything about life's prevalence with a sample of only one. That's why we really should work hard to search the solar system for present or past life. It's one of the few shots we have short of interstellar travel of actually determining the prevalence of life.

I'm also skeptical that we'll ever be able to prove life via chemical detections like this one. The problem is that while we may not know of a way for a compound to be produced without life, we can't ever be certain that there isn't some unknown non-biological route for that compound's synthesis. It's an unknown unknown. Maybe dimethyl sulfide can form without life, but in some odd conditions that just don't exist on our planet. We can't prove there isn't some non-biological way to form it. There are really only two ways to prove that a planet has life on it:

  1. Physically go there or bring back samples. Find said life, examine it with your own eyes or under a microscope, and directly observe it reproducing, reacting to its environment, etc.

  2. Detect radio or other signals or signatures of a clearly technological origin.

This is why I'm a big proponent of SETI. Even beyond the prospect of making contact, detecting technosignatures is one of the few ways we could have truly unambiguous evidence of alien life. If you find some loud laser or radio beacon belching out long strings of prime numbers, well, you've just proven beyond any doubt that life exists outside of Earth. Maybe that life is long dead. Maybe the life forms were replaced by machines. Who knows. But if you find something clearly technological out there, you can know for certain that there had to be life involved somewhere along the chain from dead random matter to interstellar beacon.

[–] WoodScientist@hexbear.net 22 points 1 day ago

Yup. "Autism" is simply the new "Untermensch."

[–] WoodScientist@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

I'm in your home right now. I can hear you breathing. You'll never find me.

[–] WoodScientist@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago

Please. At least use his full and proper name, Secretary of Transportation Booty Judge.

[–] WoodScientist@hexbear.net 43 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It sounds like he's confusing autism with cerebral palsy or severe Down syndrome.

[–] WoodScientist@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Seriously. Look at this: https://archive.is/itNDE A WSJ article describing how Bukele is already planning to double the size of his concentration camp.

I am fully convinced that he has signed his own death warrant at this point. Eventually, one way or another, the Trump regime will end. And building a concentration camp for American citizens is not something people will forgive or forget. Cries will go out to depose him like we have countless Central American leaders before, except this time we'll actually be on the side of the angels for once. Bukele is going to get the Osama Bin Ladin treatment by the time this is all over. He has signed his own death warrant.

[–] WoodScientist@hexbear.net 15 points 2 days ago (11 children)

He's a US Senator. If he was really serious, he would be arranging a filibuster of El Salvador. Normally I'm not in favor of the US and its citizens overthrowing Central American governments. But if you're openly calling yourself a dictator and operating literal concentration camps? Yeah, sorry. You deserve what's coming to you.

[–] WoodScientist@hexbear.net 24 points 2 days ago

I also went to Buenos Aires. I had my face rebuilt there!

 

A question for the home brewers out there who know a lot of chem. One of the biggest problems with home brewing is verifying that the raw active ingredients you order are in fact what you ordered. You order estradiol enanthate or some other ingredient from a manufacturer, and an unknown white powder shows up at your door. There are crude testing methods available like the melting point test, but they are limited. There are also testing services like janoshik out there, but they're expensive and involve shipping samples internationally. With shipping, testing a single specimen with a service like janoshik can be $100-$200.

I know dedicated dedicated optical spectrophotometers like these exist. While accurate, these units are big, bulky, expensive, and not really suitable for the kinds of simple compact labs home brewers use.

I stumbled across this video describing a little cheap spectrometer available from a small shop in China. The videos I can find of it only show measuring the spectra of various light bulbs. However, I'm wondering if it's possible to use such a device to measure the purity of specimens of estradiol enanthate and other HRT medications.

I'm not an expert in spectrometry by any means, but I am aware of the general process. With a dedicated desktop spectrophotometer, you create a calibration/standard curve by measuring the spectrum of solutions of different concentrations prepared with a sample of known purity. Then you use that curve to measure the concentration of your unknown specimen.

But the big desktop units are designed from the ground up to do this. You place solutions in dedicated transparent cuvettes. Everything is in a single fixed unit designed for this purpose.

But is it possible to do something similar using just a simple spectrometer? Could you maybe buy such a spectrometer, bolt it to a surface, and cobble together some means of holding a cuvette? If you could fix the cuvette, light source, and detector a fixed distances from each other, then perhaps you could use such a device to cobble together a basic simple optical spectrophotometer?

Would this actually work? My thought is that while this wouldn't be the most accurate spectrophotometer out there, ultimately it doesn't matter. The goal of testing raws is not to measure their concentration to four significant figures. The goal is simply to verify you have the right compound and to ensure that it hasn't been cut with fillers. Even if such a setup had an error rate of a few percent, this would still be perfectly acceptable for raws testing.

I hope I'm explaining this question well enough. I'm really just wondering if a simple cheap usb spectrometer like this one here could be used or modified into a device that can measure raws concentrations.

view more: next ›