zksmk

lebby.ml

Indeed. However, they are also very slow (usually around 30 km/h) and more importantly very slow to change that speed (cargo ships starts braking 5-10 km before port). The ships' engines aren't doing a ton of work themselves either, per unit of time.

Work per time is power in physics. A ship like this has an engine of about 100 000 horse power per google, which is about 400 cars' worth of power. And 10th of that is about 40 cars. Which matches thereabouts a huge sail in a strong wind at large altitude in the open ocean like this, I think. Back of the envelope math checks out.

Ooo, a general purpose lemmy instance with no politics allowed, and a catchy name. Interesting.

Depends on the country.

"The average is calculated by adding up all of the individual values and dividing this total by the number of observations. The median is calculated by taking the “middle” value, the value for which half of the observations are larger and half are smaller."

So for example, in a country with 99% poor people, and 1% insanely rich people, the median person's wealth is actually really small (like the poor people), but the average person's wealth is kinda big (except a person with that mid-ground wealth doesn't actually exist in the country).

In the case of voters, this means that in a country of highly polarized views and power, so of imbalanced sides, the median and average voter can be very different. One is what the people want, the other is what the power wants.

"The median voter theorem is a proposition relating to ranked preference voting put forward by Duncan Black in 1948.[1] It states that if voters and policies are distributed along a one-dimensional spectrum, with voters ranking alternatives in order of proximity, then any voting method which satisfies the Condorcet criterion will elect the candidate closest to the median voter. In particular, a majority vote between two options will do so. A loosely related assertion had been made earlier (in 1929) by Harold Hotelling.[3] It is not a true theorem and is more properly known as the median voter theory or median voter model. It says that in a representative democracy, politicians will converge to the viewpoint of the median voter.[4] "

Emphasis mine.

...but do not seem to bear any tangible meaning. Like, what is force, work/energy, field, matter?

Contrary to what some people might expect from physics, it's a lot more philosophical, than just tangible. These terms are in some ways more philosophical than material, and I guess that' s the part that's confusing you.

I guess in general, with physics you're dealing with a different set of philosophical categories than with maths, it's less abstract logic and sets, and is more about actions and reactions.

And in the words of people more eloquent than me, physics is a story written in the language of maths, that's their difference, as well. It's like grammar vs a screenplay. Technically, they're both linguistics, but very very different at the same time.

On those notes, force is just defined as an "influence that can change the motion of an object", sort of like in common every day parlance. Force is a thing that makes changes in the world. Energy is the ability to create those forces.

Field is something that fully permeates 3D space and exists there with its changeable local properties. It's what enables the existence of matter in space. Matter is an "excitation", a value lump, a value spike, in that field in a specific location. Think of it like a math graph with a small bunch of values in a specific part of it, matter in a field. And so on...

...mystical/mythical (dark matter, anti matter...

I don't think these two are particularly mystical. Dark matter is just a phrase we invented for the fact we notice the gravity of a lot of matter when observing the way the galaxies rotate, but we don't see any of that matter. Therefore we conclude, there must be some matter that has mass/gravity but can't be seen, i.e. doesn't interact with electromagnetic waves. That's all, nothing spooky, just instead of protons, electrons etc... it's a different type of matter.

Similar with antimatter. Matter atoms are made from massive "positively" charged protons and small-massed "negatively" charged electrons. Antimatter is the opposite, made from massive "negatively" charged antiprotons and small-massed "positively" charged positrons. That's it, it's like chemistry or whatever. Different lego blocks. It's just that matter and antimatter, once they collide, go boom and turn into photons and stuff so basically all the matter we have around us is regular matter because there was more of it in the early days of yore.

... spacetime...

I guess this one might bit a tad mystical, in the sense that time and space are philosophical concepts. I actually feel tho that once they're combined like this into spacetime they become a lot more tangible and mathematical/geometric and easier to digest. In some ways.

...I just don’t think Bell’s theorem has taken into account the entire possibility of hidden variables ... I doubt myself on this one since Redditors downvoted this.

Well considering the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2022 was just awarded two days ago to three scientists for establishing the violation of Bell's inequalities, I'd say your judgment on trusting the more knowledgeable people on reddit was right. Unless you think you know more about the topic than Nobel laureates. ;)

How do you get any pleasure (lol) from all of these?

Some people enjoy chocolate, some enjoy vanilla, some enjoy strawberry. Some enjoy physics, some enjoy maths, some enjoy philosophy. We're all different.

Also, any study references? I found Feymann’s Lecture on Caltech’s website a bit too wordy.

I actually think it'd be better for you to not dive straight into textbook style rigor, and instead watch some more fun physics youtubers once in a while, like the ol' classics of Veritasium, Steve Mould, Smarter Every Day, PBS Spacetime, Fermilab etc... to build that physics intuition and perspective you seem to missing here, first. There's a treasure trove of accessible fun content there.

You can make mastodon have a somewhat more similar feel to lemmy, if you do the following:

Go to preferences > appearance and activate ”advanced web interface". Now if you do a search for a hashtag it will pop out a new column in the interface that you can now also pin, to stay. And in that column's own settings you can now add multiple additional hashtags that will all display their results simultaneously in the same column.

So now it's like as if you have a home feed of multiple hashtags, the feed is topic based, and not person based, and in that sense, more similar to lemmy. It gets very laggy tho if you add more than 5-ish tags, the backend code is not designed for that.

On your phone you can do the same, if you use Tusky. Just add a hashtags tab, and add multiple of them there. But not too many.

Lemmy, however, is the only one with upvote based sorting, and truly designed for the general reddit feel.

Just one. The traffic gets randomly routed through the nodes. Gather your stats over a single exit node and you've got your stats for the whole network. The longer you gather your stats over the node the closer they are to the precise stats for the whole network.

Just like you can poll 1000 random people and have a good, almost accurate, guess who's the entire country gonna vote for.

If you're trying to follow lemmy's content from your mastodon account you should type "https://lemmy.ml/c/asklemmy" (without the quotes... and also omitting https:// should work as well, as well as typing "@asklemmy@lemmy.ml", again, without the quotes) into the search field on mastodon, and it should pop up there, and you should be able to follow it. Repeat for any other lemmy community you might be interested in.

You won't be able to post to the community, but you'll be able to read it, and reply to posts and comments in the community, from your mastodon account.

This is one of those situations where the free market doesn't give desirable results, and where a government could step in and give subsidies for this goal, assuming it were serious about decreasing GHG emissions.

There would be no profit for the state, beyond less climate change, but the shipping industry would profit, having to spend less fuel.

Does playing chess puzzles on lichess.org count? :D

they know precise statistics. How is that is simp asking himself?

They just need one exit node?