101–110 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is also used as a coating for window panes, as it‘s great at reflecting infrared radiation (reducing heat loss). My father‘s house has such windows.
Are those windows expensive?
If it weren’t for the captions, I would assume that every single photo in this article was stock photography: “Scientists doing sciencey things.”
Maybe the photographer told the scientists - your apparatus doesn't look right - here use this pipette and beaker for the photo.
Personally I don't think the activities in photos are staged: taking the samples out of the oven and the mixing of the etching acid are real steps they need to take, just not very interesting scientifically speaking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is nuclear energy too cheap to meter ?
Measuring success this way is nonsensical. Is there anything that is too cheap to meter? Are other forms of energy also unsuccessful until they produce energy too cheap too meter? This isn't serious criteria. The argument is that this is a silly framing with which to judge success. I agree! I for one am extremely content consuming energy, more than half of which is nuclear, followed by hydro. It is very successful.
If it weren’t for the captions, I would assume that every single photo in this article was stock photography: “Scientists doing sciencey things.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the photographer told the scientists - your apparatus doesn't look right - here use this pipette and beaker for the photo.
What we can say for sure is that the editor of the article chose very generic science-y photos. Personally I don't think the activities in photos are staged: taking the samples out of the oven and the mixing of the etching acid are real steps they need to take, just not very interesting scientifically speaking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Measuring success this way is nonsensical. Is there anything that is too cheap to meter? Are other forms of energy also unsuccessful until they produce energy too cheap too meter? This isn't serious criteria. The argument is that this is a silly framing with which to judge success. I agree! I for one am extremely content consuming energy, more than half of which is nuclear, followed by hydro. It is very successful.
Measuring success by whether the proponents delivers on their promises seems entirely fair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the photographer told the scientists - your apparatus doesn't look right - here use this pipette and beaker for the photo.
What we can say for sure is that the editor of the article chose very generic science-y photos. Personally I don't think the activities in photos are staged: taking the samples out of the oven and the mixing of the etching acid are real steps they need to take, just not very interesting scientifically speaking.
I'm not really sure anything done in the average lab makes for a great picture tbh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not this thin, unless Chinese manufacturing has made heretofore unknown advances in materials science.
You jest, but I wouldn't put it past cheap Chinese manufacturing to somehow do this at some point in the next 100 years. "How did you invent a room temperature supraconductor? -we thought it would save us $0.00001 per part"
I know you're jesting the jester, but Chinese manufacturing is on par with "the west" in terms of making money hand over fist on selling plastic junk, with minimal risk due to overpricing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a similar wrong meme about how you never really "touch" anything. Ok, what is the exact moment you touch something? How close do the atoms need to be?
There isn't an exact moment, any more than there is an exact height that is "tall". And yet, tall people exist.