The obvious one is buying drugs. I don’t feel like arguing the morality of doing that but anonymous money is definitely useful for that.

It is fluorine indeed.

Dysprosium is an f-block element tho.

F

Iron? Manganese? I don’t care what transition metal you are, at the end of the day you just want to fulfill your desire for d…

I’m sure there’s a better version of the joke out there, but being funny isn’t my strength

I think no one around here realizes how fucking insane a 5 W laser pointer is, it’s not blinding people level, it’s more like, don’t shine it at anything white or you might blind yourself level.

For reference the highest laser security classification starts at 0.5 W.

Maybe I’m exaggerating here but 5 W is definitely a lot.

So yeah, I’m down with the laser pointer.

1. Light = energy, shorter wavelengths= higher energy. Blue light has a shorter wavelength than red light. UV has even more energy. X-Rays have a lot more energy. For reference in the visible spectrum were talking about maybe 1-4 eV (this may be wrong, I’m too drunk to look it up rn).

2. If we want to produce light, the aim is to find an energy gap that has the exact energy gap that corresponds to the wavelength we’re interested in. Typically this corresponds to an electronic transition, i.e. an electron “jumps” into a higher orbital, on its way down it will emit the energy difference as light.

2.1 X-Rays rn are produced by accelerating electrons onto a metal plate with high voltage. The impact of the electron “rips” out an electron in the close vicinity of the nucleus. Another electron will take the place of that electron, the energy gap associated with that process is large, which is why it produces X-Rays.

3. If we want to produce LEDs that emit in the far UV range we have to find large energy gaps in materials which is difficult. We still have to have a way to get the electron across the energy gap using electricity.

4. X-Ray LEDs are probably not realistic, as the energy of x-rays is so large that we have to rip out electrons from the close vicinity of the nucleus… which is already what we’re doing with X-ray tubes.

I can’t speak for everyone but I used to say “I can’t drop windows because I need XYZ programs all the time”.

Well turns out I don’t, and turns out it’s surprisingly easy to tell my employer (well my professor really, I am a PhD student) “Sorry I can’t run that program, I don’t have windows”. If they don’t accept it, they can supply me with a windows PC.

Well, looks like it flew right over my head

Maybe you can’t but I definitely can, flawlessly. Only thing is once I close a game I have to restart the scream.

Brendan Eich

Looks like Brendan Eichmann is a wrestling coach from Minnesota

You are asking an infinitely difficult question of why she is so incredibly popular, I don’t think I can tell you why she’s more popular than, say, Beyoncé. Except maybe that she is more consistent. That said, I’ll give you my perspective on why I like Taylor Swift.

I’m a dude and my music taste is pretty diverse but I mostly grew up listening to metal and punk. That said, when I left my ex (for the second time). It felt really good to listen to We are never ever getting back together on repeat. Most breakups I’ve had, had songs that have helped me through and leaving a toxic relationship… It just felt really good to repeatedly sing those words over and over.

I don’t know if it’s actually true but I’m a guitarist and I’ve heard the phrase “Taylor Swift is the Beatles of the 21st century” meaning her music releases currently have the largest impact on guitar sales and popularity. If for nothing else, I respect her a lot for performing live with a guitar. She doesn’t do anything crazy but you don’t have to have crazy guitar skills to make good music. I personally enjoy learning her songs every now and then because a) they are relatively straightforward to learn but still encompass nice playful elements, b) I am mostly interested in becoming a better singer nowadays and her songs are definitely challenging for me to sing.

3. Both folklore and evermore are really nice albums imo. Very nice and tasteful music. Last year I had a phase where I was having trouble finding music. I was sick of extreme metal, I was sick of hardcore techno, and I listened to so much leftist folk and folk punk that I grew sick of it. All the music I listened to was always fast, intense and challenging. I just wanted nice songs that I can sing along to with real instrumentation. I realised I don’t mind pop music but I like real instruments because they feel more real to me (fwiw lol, please don’t take this as hatred for electronics, I also love techno as stated above). Well folklore and evermore offer just that for me. Nice songs with real instruments and beautiful instrumentation. I prefer folklore for being darker but evermore uses more guitar which I also like. My fav songs out of the 2 albums:

Folklore

• cardigan
• mirrorball
• this is me trying
• invisible string

Evermore

• willow
• champagne problems
• 'tis the damn season

I still want to express that I don’t always like her lyric writing. She uses brand names a bunch and I also feel like there are often references to American things which I just don’t know about.

Also, while I like folklore and evermore, I find them borderline impossible to listen to all the way through. All the songs basically strike the same mood, it’s nice relaxing music, but there’s not a big emotional arc throughout the albums for me. I tend to stop listening to evermore once I reach “no body, no crime”… God that song is awful lol.

I hate Spotify (I have to preface with this sentence)

But plenty of artists these days don’t bother releasing CDs and MP3s and you can legitimately only stream their songs.

I know small artists who were unable to send me the files of their own songs when I asked them. They just sent me a YouTube link and told me to listen there.

Sorry for awkward sentences

Don’t be sorry, you’re communicating quite clearly.

And, just for the record, I do agree that the term “organic” is daft when referring to food. The term is entirely arbitrary and I wish we had a food certificate that was actually based on scientific factors (like impact on environment etc.)…

They need to have orbital hybridization

This one is often cited as a factor (because it excludes carbides like e.g. WC, TiC, TaC) but afaik it’s not true. Carbon in graphite is sp2 hybridised, in diamond it’s sp3 hybridised, both are explicitly excluded from the definition of organic.

Side note: I am unsure whether graphene falls under the definition of organic. Depending on how you look at it, it’s just a huge aromatic molecule. Don’t get me started on nanoribbons which are synthesized from organic precursors…
But I know people doing research on graphene, and I don’t think they would care about that definition. It simply doesn’t matter.

Side note^2: While CO_2 is also explicitly excluded from being organic, it can be used as an educt in organic reactions (e.g. Preparing Phenylacetic Acid from Benzyl chloride and CO_2)

MSc in chemistry here

Just because chemistry utilizes words and defines them with specific criteria it doesn’t mean these words can not be used in other contexts with different meanings (e.g. vinyl)

Oh and you probably know, but diamond, graphite, CO₂ and all sorts of carbonates are excluded from being organic.

Why do y’all have to write in such a condescending/rude way?

My point was Bluetooth is not better in every way and I stand by that (you seem to too).

Personally, I have 2 pairs of headphones 1 pair of in-ears and 1 pair of over-ears, I use my over-ears for everything except band practice and gigs (where I use in-ears). Buying more headphones just so I can use them with my phone seems ridiculous to me.

I am happy that you find joy in wireless headphones, and I’ll stop talking now in fear of summoning that Candybar Jerk again.

I know people don’t really value it these days, but to me there is great value in (stupidly) simple technology.

The more complicated a system is, the more prone it is to breakage. We have lots of areas in our life where we already rely on complicated circuits. I don’t need to add headphones to that list.

Have you seen anyone in a music recording studio or a stage wearing Bluetooth headphones?

My point is not that everybody needs headphones for studio sessions or gigs etc. My point is simply that Bluetooth is not just better as you seem to imply.

Different technologies have different usecases, wired headphones won’t die for a very long time, and there are good reasons for it.