The way I understand it is the farther away a object is the faster it is moving away from us, but also the farther away something is the older it is. So could that mean things were moving apart faster in the past but are slowing down?

In music there is the very well established practice of placing compressors on audio signals that have too much jarring dynamics from quiet to loud and tend to hurt our ears and not feel aesthetically pleasant. However in the realm of human sight while there is flux and other screen blue light eliminators/eye comfort filters and a decent amount of dark mode support for a lot of software and webpages/browsers... it seems strange to me that I have never found a eye comfort plugin for a computer or phone that attempts to massage abrupt extremes as well as abrupt discontinuous changes in a wholistic measure of a display's light intensity output.

What I am describing would look like is when you opened a new tab from a relatively grey/dark mode dominated display picture in your web browser and the webpage that loaded was all white that instead of being a massive abrupt blast of white to your eyes the "light intensity compressor" would limit how fast the overall brightness of the picture could change and slow the speed down to a pleasant gradual change that ended up presenting the actual very bright display image only after working your eyes up to it. The light intensity compressor could also be a limiter and simply not passthrough overall brightness values over a certain amplitude.

Note I am not asking for "apply dark mode" everywhere tools I am asking if any tools exist that can sit at the end of the image display pipeline and moderate dynamics so that sudden brightness changes were simply not displayed.

I realize this isn't really a directly a science question but since it involves somewhat complicated signal analysis and manipulation concepts I figured science was a better place for it.

If none of these tools exist is there a hard reason they couldn't?

When I search “human nesting behavior” all I get is stuff about expectant mothers. I’m thinking of nightly nest building.

Physicalism or materialism. The idea that everything there is arises from physical matter. If true would mean there is no God or Free Will, no immortal soul either.

Seems to be what most of academia bases their world view on and the frame work in which most Science is done.

Often challenged by Dualism and Idealism but only by a loud fringe minority.

I've heard pan-psychicism is proving quite the challenge, but I hear that from people who believe crystals can cure autism

I hear that "Oh actually the science is moving away from materialism" as well, but that seems to be more crystal talk as well.

So lemme ask science instead of google.

Any reason to doubt physicalism? Is there anything in science that says "Huh well that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists"

Edit: I have heard of the Essentia Foundation and Bernado Kastrup but since it's endorsed by Deepak Chopra I'm not sure I can trust it

We want to DIY some unique marker inspired artwork. The "DNA art" from companies online involves sending a DNA sample, and we have privacy concerns about that, and we'd rather not fork out thousands of dollars for DNA sequencing devices just for this. We can resort to a fingerprint for inspiration if there's nothing more interesting available and affordable to us, but we'd like to explore our options first.

The DNA sequence artworks they're talking about are ones like this, but it doesn't necessarily have to look anything like these:

Mumbai to London - 10:05

London to Mumbai - 08:45

Is this because of earth's rotation?

Clades, clines, clusters. Is only one system valid? Two? All three? None at all?

I've heard and seen scientists debate this since around the early 2000s with conflicting answers so I'm really curious to hear what's the most appropriate take on this topic.

And let me disclaim that obviously human populations are fuzzy categories to begin with.

I’m currently learning Python, but in the meantime I still want to try a simple simulation of my ideas. I just need a program that lets me create particles and forces with whatever properties and interactions I want that I can then simulate. For example, I might make a particle that attracts certain particles and repels others according to some equation. I already tried asking in softwareoptions, by the way

Hello chemistry nerds!

I got into dyeing, first using commercial products, then experimenting with DIY vegetable-based dyes, because if there's a more expensive and labour intense alternative to buying a ten dollar product, I'm all over it. Naturally, I started extracting lake pigments to make paints out of my used dye baths.

Before you say it, yes! I do want lower quality paints that fade faster and take two days to make.

I use alum (aluminium phosphate) and soda ash (sodium carbonate) to precipitate the pigment, followed by drying and grinding.

Since this journey began I noticed some dyes just won't work for pigments. I tried hot, cold, waiting, stirring, light jazz, more acid, more base, but the bitches won't precipitate. Cranberries were my most recent failed pigment (but they dyed real nice.) There was lots of colour left, and I even tried a new dye batch with fresh cranberries, but it had the same result.

SO! I'm wondering:

1. What makes a dye substance a better candidate for a lake pigment? Are there chemicals the alum can latch onto easier than others?

2. If alum doesn't work, could a different metallic salt work better?

3. Why does every blog say not to use your dye equipment for food? What if I clean it super well?

4. Are there other chemicals I can try? For funzies?

5. Are there any other cheap, convenient products I can replace with five hours of destroying my kitchen?

So one day my DSLR stopped working, it doesn't turn on anymore. I removed battery, recharged it to make sure it has juice but camera still doesn't turn on.

I found a YouTube video suggesting to remove sd card, battery, lens overnight and should work the next day. But it didn't happen for me. So i just let it sit there on its bag for 2 weeks. I completely forgot about it and today it started working again after putting the battery in and sd card.

What happened there?

If somebody was having issues with a weakened immune system, and also dealing with a chronically higher baseline level of inflammation, are there any known ways to strengthen the immune system while reducing or at least not increasing baseline inflammation? Is that even possible or is some level of inflammation unavoidable?

Would it depend on the specific inflammatory factors that are already causing the higher baseline response?

I know there's some research about running reducing inflammation, but it also triggers some inflammation? Is the acute inflammation triggered by running tied to longer term reductions in inflammation?

I'm curious as English-speaking people often say "Chinese is the hardest language to learn", but after speaking to a few East Asian people (Thailand, Vietnam, Singapur, India, ...) , it is by far not the hardest language to learn for them.

There are languages that build their sentences completely differently (subject object verb, verb object subject, object subject verb, ...), have few sounds that overlap, express time differently or are missing some tenses altogether, change the entire meaning of the sentence by different word placement, etc.

Surely there's a metric out there that considers those things in addition to sounds and their significance in the language.

I watched Anton Petrov's last upload on the impossible merger of intermediate mass black holes,(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p6PgXqL6OQ).

Do two orbiting black holes have a gravitational resonant effect that is different than a single object of an equivalent mass?

For background, I was on a tour coming back from Ballestas Islands just off of Peru, around 11:00 a.m., no rain (it's a desert area), sky was partly cloudy. The phenomenon stayed a couple of minutes. As we progressed, the colours merged to a strand of amber.

So, this one's likely pretty niche, but I'm hoping someone here might know the answer.

So, I've gotten genotype data for myself from 23AndMe (don't worry, I made them delete it before the acquisition) and AncestryDNA years ago and I've been looking into things like SNPs and such more recently. I write code for a living, so I can do some cool things with a little code and the raw data that I've gotten to check into what interesting SNPs I might have.

Something I've noticed recently is that for some SNPs, I've got alleles that aren't listed as a possibility anywhere on the internet that I can find.

Just to take a random example, rs3746544, part of the SNAP25 gene. According to SNPedia, the available alleles are A and C with A being the major allele and C being the minor. So what is my genotype for that SNP?

[tootsweet@computer genome_raw_data]$ grep rs3746544 23andme_raw_data.txt ancestrydna_raw_data.txt
23andme_raw_data.txt:rs3746544    20      10287084        TT
ancestrydna_raw_data.txt:rs3746544   20      10287084        T       T
[tootsweet@computer genome_raw_data]$

TT? There's zero mention of "T" being an allele that you can have for rs3746544.

rs3746544 is very much not the only example. Just a few more among many:

• SNPedia says rs807701 has alleles C and T, but I have AA.
• SNPedia says rs25532 has alleles C and T, but I have AG.
• SNPedia says rs6265 has alleles A and G, but I have TT.

I'm hoping some of you folks know enough about genes to know what might be up with these examples. I'm sure it's just simply something I don't yet understand about genetics. Thanks in advance!

Edit: So I had a bit of a brain fart after writing this in a comment:

(Side note: oddly of the 23 "mismatch" examples I mentioned, my genotype doesn’t have a single allele in common with the documented possible alleles for the SNP. For example, I don’t have any AT’s where the documented alleles are AA, AC, and CC. My genes either match the documented alleles or have no alleles in common with the documented genotypes. Which seems even stranger.)

A's match with T's and C's with G's. I'm guessing when I get a "mismatch" like what I'm talking about, what 23andme or AncestryDNA is giving me is the complementary base pairs. So if I see a CT where the documented options are AA, AG, and GG, I should just consider my CT to be equivalent to an AG. (Because the T matches up with an A and the C matches up with a G.)

So I guess that means that sometimes the equiment that 23andme and AncestryDNA use reads the other side of the DNA strand from the one that's documented in the literature. (This only seems to happen in about 16.5% of cases or therebouts -- at least that's what my napkin math indicates. In most cases, what 23andme and AncestryDNA report in the raw data matches and thus must be measuring/reading/reporting the "same side" of the double helix as the literature talks about.)

At least that theory seems consistent with what I'm seeing. If anybody knows better, I definitely would appreciate any further input!

That said, it does seem kindof odd that any time 23andme reads the "other side" of the DNA molecule, so does AncestryDNA and vice versa. That is, there don't seem to be any cases where they disagree on my genotype for a given SNP. At least I haven't seen any examples of that so far. I might have to do some searching now.

Edit 2: I've done a little more googling based on the first edit above and found this page. It seems 23andme always goes off of the so-called "+ strand" of the "Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 37" human reference genome. So maybe the 23 examples I've found so far are cases where at least some of the literature (or at least SNPedia and EUPedia, if not "the literature") is based more off of what the "Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 37" considers the "- strand". So maybe "the literature" (and/or SNPedia/EUPedia) uses a different reference genome? All this is still just a theory, but I definitely know more than I did a few minutes ago.

Edit 3: Some folks are suggesting that 23AndMe and AncestryDNA may just not be accurate. As in, 23AndMe and AncestryDNA may have a very high error rate when reading my genetic data. If that was the case, I wouldn't expect the inaccuracies to "match" between the two raw data files. So, to test that hypothesis out, I wrote a script to check my 23AndMe raw data against my AncestryDNA data to see how often they disagree. The script is quite slow, but at the moment it's checked over 35,000 SNPs that are measured by both services and found 12 that disagree for an error rate of roughly 0.0343%. From another comment, I mentioned the instances I've found make up about 16.5% of the ones I've checked. So it doesn't seem like that accounts for a very large percentage of these. I'm still leaning pretty heavily toward it just being the "other strand" theory. Thanks again for everyone's input!

I live in northwest US and I sometimes see the moon both at day and night.

Does this mean that the other side of the world doesn’t get the moon at all for that time period?

I understand the basic of quantum computing (qubits, superposition, probability distributions, noise, how observing works, etc), but I'm struggling to understand what operations actually go on within an algorithm. I know you essentially do linear algebra to transform a vector closer and closer to the "true" outcome, but that's very abstract. What's actually going on when one does that? How does an operation "know" what the "true" outcome is?

Apologies if my terminology is way off---I'm only just looking into this, lol.

This video is a slideshow of a series of photos I took with my drone as a storm approached Brisbane, with a strange phenomenon that I'm unfamiliar with.

You can see a horizontal bolt of lightning slowly crawling its way across the sky from left to right. What's interesting is that each frame of the slide is an 8 second still, meaning that the bolt was visible in the sky for over a minute!

Taxing wealth instead of work is touted as an important part of the solution to the wealth gap, but I'm curious which other solutions have been proposed or attempted and have succeeded or failed.