My dog eats and drinks out of metal bowls. I’ve noticed that when I turn around after filling up the water bowl in the sink, any spit bubbles or backwash on the surface of the water stay oriented the same way (relative to everything else, not me). Why is this? This behavior doesn’t change regardless of how fast or slow, careful or not I am. I’m not sure what kind of metal the bowl is, but it’s about the size and shape of half a basketball. Where I live, the tap water is pretty damn clean. If there are any extraneous factors I haven’t thought to mention, let me know.

Was looking at how rigor mortis is caused and found out it's from the body leaking calcium into the muscles.

Would adding calcium to meat make it tough similar to what happens with rigor mortis?

Is there any reason to be optimistic about it, or are we all doomed? As far as I've looked it up, the more optimistic projections predict a 1-2° global temperature rise in the next few decades, which is pretty bad.

Is it a smart decision to start moving to higher/colder regions yet? What can we do?

And is there a good resource or video essay or whatever for this? There is so much misinformation and fearmongering around climate change. It's a hassle to weed out any trustable information.

Not sure if I'm asking in the right community but I'm wondering if there is a point on the human body that if you relax it causes the entire rest of the body to relax?

Say, in the context of finding microbial life on Mars (i.e., organisms that evolved from the start with six nucleotides, not just taking current terrestrial organisms and swapping out the nucleic acids and ribosomes).

Would it be a black hole that you're somehow wrapped in that's causing the space time disturbance? Would it be localized? Or is this something that'd be affecting the entire world?

What would this realistically do to a human?

I did some light research and asked AI, which said it would be extremely dangerous. But come on, it wouldn’t be that dangerous, right? We evolved from animals that lived in the ocean.

I once saw a post on Reddit or similar claiming that the poster lived near a US Naval base and that occaisionally all hobbiest drones flying near the base would just shut down. They claimed that this was due to the powerful radar signals sent out from the base that either interfered with the drones' controls or caused an electrical problem of some kind in the drones. I'm not sure whether they said it was a ship or something on the base itself that sent the signals.

I guess my question comes in two parts. First, is what this person claimed even a real thing? Would naval radar take small, hobbiest-type drones out of the air? I can't find the post, and I didn't see anything similar mentioned in a brief search.

Second, this made me think about more fun what-if type questions. If someone just set up an antenna in a suburban neighborhood and blasted out radar with the power of a "typical" US Navy ship or station, what effects would it have on the neighborhood? For example:

• Would it damage any other devices, such as TVs or computers?
• What effects would it have on nearby humans? Would people in the house be burned?
• How much power would be required?
• I know this would be super illegal. How long would it take the FCC to determine exactly which house had done it? How would they pinpoint the location?

I feel stupid adding this caveat, but I'll mention that don't worry, I have no intention of blasting high-powered radar signals from my residence.

Antivax types are all anti pushing vaccine on to people but if they don't want to get vaccinated then it still won't affect vaccinated folks. From my rough understanding, getting vaccinated keeps you alive or get less severe symptoms, but you can still pass it on.

So if antivax people don't get it, then why not just let them die?

Edit: guys, I'm not antivax, I just don't understand how herd immunity works.

Hi, I've maintained and used a sourdough starter many years of my life, and I've tried different methods of making the stater. For a while, I would make my bread and then pinch a piece of it off (a "levain") and let that function as my sourdough starter for the next loaf.

More recently, I feed a cup of sourdough starter with flour and water each day, and after a few days when it gets old enough, I start a new one using a small amount of the sourdough as a "seed" and discard the rest (usually I make bread with it).

My question is about the seed - if a sourdough starter has a variety of microbes, the way I seed the next starter might have an impact, it's a form of selection.

Since they are microbes, I assume there are many of them in the sourdough and I don't need much to get "enough" of a sample to keep a healthy culture going - I just stir a spoon in the old sourdough, then use that same spoon (with the little bit of sourdough stuck to the spoon) to stir the new sourdough's flour and water together, and that's it.

But I keep thinking about how this might be a kind of selection - and I was wondering if there is a significant difference in, for example, a levain method of pinching off a piece of the whole and the microbial sampling that has vs the sampling from just not cleaning off the spoon when stirring the old and then the new.

I would imagine the levain has a greater likelihood of all the microbes being present, while a single spoonful might constitute a more narrow subset of microbes? Or maybe the microbes are distributed evenly enough in the sourdough that a spoonful represents as broad a sample as a pinched off piece?

I haven't noticed any obvious, practical differences in how the starter is made, but I'm wondering if a theoretical, significant difference exists.

I guess some of this paranoia comes from thinking about Zeno's paradox, the 100 prisoner problem, and the Monty Hall problem.

A levain seems more likely to contain a small amount of each kind of microbe (since the whole is incorporated and then mixed well before being divided into a part) than the approach of starting a new starter from a single spoonful (which necessarily selects only a subset first from the whole - a subset which may or may not be as evenly distributed as from a levain).

In practice this probably makes no difference, but maybe there could be minor ways a spoon would preference some kinds of microbes over others (maybe if the spoon were made of silver, for example, the microbes that survive contact with the silver would be more likely to carry on to future generations?).

Anyway, thoughts? (Other than about my mental fitness, lol.)

Also, why dont off shore windmills operations build off existing unused structures like out of commission oil rig platforms? Assuming the biggest additional cost is building the same as land structure but without hundreds of feet of additional structure for new off shore windmill structures?

Edit: im admittedly uneducated on this, but read about technology like (as stated in reply below) laser deterrents or Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) dont work, then strap a fucking dog whistle for birds on the blades should be in the realm of possibilities.

The last sentence in the 'Plain Language summary' says "Cranberry products (such as tablets or capsules) were also ineffective (although had the same effect as taking antibiotics), possibly due to lack of potency of the 'active ingredient'." ......What?

How could they have the same effect as antibiotics and be ineffective at the same time? Is this suggesting antibiotics are ineffective against UTIs? Aren't antibiotics used to treat UTIs to begin with?

If someone could explain any or all of that to me, I would appreciate it greatly. My girlfriend just got a UTI and is very scared. I found this article, but it seems to contradict itself in a few places, to me. I'm not a scientist, so I recognize that I might just not be able to comprehend it, and would love some clarification!

If you got this far, I'm also wondering how these studies could be considered accurate if a lot of the subjects stopped taking the cranberry products?

TL; DR is the first two sections at the top👆

Theories are just theories, but some theories have more weight then others - what theory do you find the most credible?

I want to try making a bubble lens cover for a display enclosure. I'm thinking about a simple sandwich of sheet metal flashing with a center window to clamp a sheet of 2mm acrylic. Then place a nichrome wire heating element under the exposed acrylic. The heat will rise and gravity will deform the window to create the bubble.

I could probably get by with a sketchy setup that wraps the nichrome wire around nails in a wooden frame for a one off. Alternatively, I could probably use mica sheets, like a typical domestic toaster, to build a frame that the wire wraps around.

What I'm curious about is if labs have some better goto setup to create custom heating elements. Is there some kind of erector or Lego like set of cheap hardware people use for creating custom heating apparatuses? I'm thinking like a set of ceramic standoffs and a configurable base plate or other basic hardware. Like if you wanted to automate a medium size production run of something and needed a few different size heating elements, how would you build them?

This might be the dumbest thing I've asked out loud. But I'm really interested in how the measles virus causes immune system amnesia, and if that specific aspect of the measles virus might be able to treat autoimmune disorders.

obviously, this has the drawback that the patients would be infected with measles. but would their immune system stop attacking their own body?

Sort of a follow up to my topic asking why NDE Research wasn't taken seriously. Which btw I got great replies to.

I was expecting the usual "Oh near death isn't REALLY death." And "Because its bullshit." Strawman non answers

But instead I got people interfacing with the data and pointing out that an afterlife was no the direction the data headed outside of spirituality circles that did not interpret the data correctly to begin with.

So looking at how everything to do with conciousness leads to the brain and how we have discovered that a sense of self separate from the body is illusionary.

I have to ask

Is it an open secret that the afterlife is debunked?

I can find tons of arguments and information against it and the only thing supporting basically going "Well the brain is your conciousness but no one knows for sure."

So a "I'm not saying no, but I sure as hell am not saying yes." Being the strongest yes isn't exactly reassuring. It makes me think the "I don't know" is actually a "no" trying to be polite

I'm wondering about something a bit beyond the simple "what's the maximum dose not to exceed?". We all know that caffeine, consumed wisely, has a very favorable benefit/risk ratio: improved focus, energy boost, better athletic performance, and even some suggested long- term health benefits from studies.

So my question is: for a healthy adult male, what would be the ideal quantity of caffeine in milligrams (mg) per day to maximize benefits (focus, energy, well-being) while minimizing downsides (anxiety, poor sleep, jitters)?

I'm not looking for the dose to pull an all-nighter or break a record, but really the "cruising" dose for optimal daily health and productivity.

I guess I've always been confused by the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics and the fact that it's taken seriously. Like is there any proof at all that universes outside of our own exist?

I admit that I might be dumb, but, how does one look at atoms and say "My God! There must be many worlds than just our one?"

I just never understood how Many Worlds Interpretation was valid, with my, admittedly limited understanding, it just seemed to be a wild guess no more strange than a lot things we consider too outlandish to humor.