Yeah, and I’m positing that the probability he did not have a penis is at least 0.5%.

The Bible is not accurate regarding Jesus’ early life.

I don’t think it’s wrong to exercise an iota of skepticism.

Was Luke there at the circumcision? What was his source?

Wouldn’t Jesus being trans and Luke being misinformed (or actually trying to avoid outting him) explain why there isn’t really any testimony about Jesus’s life during puberty? It was an incredibly misogynistic era right? Is it inconceivable for a person without a penis to try to pass as a man in that era?

If a person can better appreciate Jesus by understanding him as a trans-man should a christian tell them they’re wrong? Does it put them in spiritual jeopardy? Is it dishonest to say “maybe”? I don’t think so.

Jesus on the other hand 100% had a dick. […] Jesus was 100% biologically male.

Oh did they find his body?

Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that the probability of Jesus being biologically male equals the human average of males being biologically male? Ie 99.5%.

Couldn’t his radical compassion for outcasts and the downtrodden be related to personal struggles growing up with gender dysphoria?

If you believe he was conceived in a virgin, wouldn’t it be MORE likely that he had XX chromosomes?

At least there are no centrists in here claiming it’s 3.5

I think its like any other utility (water or electricity or methane) except that you pay for the generation separately. So imagine that for electricity you pay a service fee to the grid operator to keep your connection capable of a certain amperage, and you separately pay the hydroelectric dam for the power you use.

ISPs are the grid operator saying, yes you pay for 200 amp service but you’ve already bought enough power this month. Don’t run your AC for the rest of the month.

I look at your diagram and see:

ϴ= L/(L+R)

And

2π-ϴ = L/R

I solved those (using substitution, then the quadratic formula) and got

L= π-1 ± √(1+π²) ~= 5.44 or -1.16

Whether or not a negative length is meaningful in this context is an exercise left to the reader

Giving (for L=5.44):

ϴ~= 0.845 ~~48.4° 

I’m surprised that it solved to a single number, maybe I made a mistake.

Pretty interesting!

The Wikipedia article has a ton of info. This magazine article which Wikipedia references is imo a better introduction https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/technology/2022/cochineal-red-dye-bugs-moves-lab

Ateam has managed to bioengineer a fungi to produce it, but with very low yields. Another team has managed to get e coli to produce it, they estimated that a 100,000 L fermenter could produce the same amount as a hectare of land.

100,000L is 100m^3 which is a cube with 4.7m side length. ~15’x15’x15’ or uhh ~~~the size of 4 F150s.

Edit to add: a hectare is 100m x 100m ie ~100 yards x 100 yards.

Not who you’re responding to but I must vehemently disagree. In English, which doesn’t have a centralized governing body, the correct way of pronouncing/spelling something depends on your intention and expected audience. If your intended audience is English speakers then the correct spelling is probably octopi or octopuses, whichever you believe will cause the least confusion/distraction (surely it varies regionally).

However, usually my intention is to portray my unfathomably superior knowledge and intellect, so the correct spelling/pronunciation in this case is: octopodes (which I think he had listed but ironically got ‘corrected’ to ‘octopuses’).

It’s not, but it seems Argentina doesn’t think people should be allowed to own their phones.

I agree that that’s probably what it’s trying to say, but I don’t think it actually says that.

I don’t think that there’s a higher concentration of morons in academia than in larger society. However, their professional experience is pretty different from the so called ‘real world’ so they definitely can have some unfathomable blind spots.

I don’t read much (/any) academic writing, but does it really misuse words the way the link portrays?

Eg

• academic writing isn’t prose, like that’s almost the definition of prose.
• intra-specialized doesn’t mean anything (the intra prefix didn’t work on adjectives)
• “obfuscating … accessibility” means making it difficult to see that it is accessible, where the author probably actually wants to say “reducing the ability of outsiders to access the meaning”

I get that it is satire, but imo it would be better satire if he put in the work to actually make it mean something. Unless the point is that academic writers misuse thesauruses this badly.

I’ve never heard anyone with first hand experience complain about living in North Korea. They literally can’t complain.

Yeah true, but I think they actually use wavelength of red shift, which is distance… traveled by light in the time it takes to make a full cycle. So I guess we’re back to seconds again.

I think they use this for distance and time because at scales being dealt with they have the same implications.

I think you need to be more specific than ‘long distance’, yes they use parsecs for ‘long distances’ but I believe only for intra-galactic objects. I think other galaxies are too distant for parallax seconds to be useful.

Don’t they measure distance and time by redshift (ie colour)

Dead Harambe timeline