I have heard that a very hardened alcoholic can get alzheimers and never know they were a drunk and don't feel withdrawals from it. Is this true? If it is then that would mean a certain portion of our brain or body can ignore the withdrawal symptoms. What part of the brain is it, and how come they don't feel the serotonin release anymore like when they were drinking. Or is it a lot or small amount of serotonin or dopamine? With that said then is the complete opposite true? Can a person trick his or her brain into getting drunk without ever touching a drop of it? Do the same parts of the brain then function like it would a person who get;s "high". Can try to explain further if any questions.

Disclaimer: I know enough about astronomy to know that I know pretty much nothing.

As dark energy was explained to me, it is a placeholder in the equation(s) for measuring the expansion of the universe. Rephrasing, we know the universe is expanding but we can't account for some amount of the force involved.

I hope I am making sense and I am not too far out in the weeds.

To my question: all of the stars are blasting out not just photons but also substantial amounts of physical matter in various states (gas, plasma, solid) that also includes material from the various objects in the solar system (eg atoms of water from mars). Wouldn't that mixture of massless photons and physical material have some significant influence on everything else?

Considering that cats are descended from big cats like lions

Title worded awkwardly, but I was thinking about the chemical makeup of our planet, and the other bodies in our solar system. Is the chemical makeup of our star system similar to every other star system? And if not, are we more similar to stars nearest to ours? Is it totally random? Like does every star system have roughly the same amount of iron, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. When averaged out? Has this even been studied?

I was intentionally against science because I kept hearing how they used back then was alot like 15 million to measure the milk enzymes in a cows hair and other stupid stuff. But I have changed.

For how long must light be emitted for a human eye to perceive it?

• Would a person notice a flash of light that lasted 10 ms?
• Does the intensity of the light matter?
• How much light is a photon, anyway? Does is take thousands or trillions of photons interacting with the eye to register as light?

1am where I live and I'm wondering

I think Category Theory is really interesting in the way it frames the human endeavor of trying to understand and map phenomena out and then reason about it, but it is a super abstract thing by design... but the thought came to me that the deluge of modern board game designs with many that are carefully designed to have complex interactions and mechanics might be a place that the utility of Category Theory could be explained in an approachable way (at least to board game nerds...) that also demonstrated the basic utility of it as a way to examine different complex systems and compare them in some logically precise way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory

To put it succinctly, could we look at Dominion and examine whether other Deckbuilding games are Isomorphic or are in some sense fundamentally similar or dissimilar in some way that isn't just qualitative? Certainly we can say that a "Bag builder" like Orléans or Quacks Of Quedlinburg can be equivalent mechanically to a Deckbuilder but what about more nuanced less obvious questions of similarity?

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/36218/dominion

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2664/deck-bag-and-pool-building

It seems to me it would give a language to talking analytically about game design, it could express things like whether you could tweak a Dominion game with certain market cards to approximate the same mechanics as another Deckbuilding game or whether there are fundamental differences between Dominion and the other Deckbuilder that preclude that and if so how precisely so does that manifest?

I realize Category Theory isn't quite Science... but it certainly represents a scientific approach to representing how we categorize and analyze the universe so in that sense... I don't know it felt right to ask it here... but I can re-post on a math community if it doesn't fit here if wanted?

https://www.math3ma.com/blog/what-is-category-theory-anyway

Don't know if this is the correct community to ask this question but here goes.

I am a physics/math major and I am fascinated by computers. I want to work on a field that deals with cutting edge computer hardware (sort of like how ssd was in the age of hdd). But most of the research seems to be on stuff that will be used by corporations (not affordable for common people).

Does anyone have any idea what field is closest to what I'm looking for?

I would also like us !askhistorians@lemmy.world to be a partner community with you guys and gals. I was told to message Sabbah but no answer so would put it to the community

I was looking at the reply to this survey map:

complainig humans don't live in the ocean. Which lead me to the question of how large of a radius around every person you would have to color, tracing all their movements for their entire life, to color in the entire earth.

Naturally, this radius would have to be set such that the most remote point across time is just barely covered. So what would that point be, and how far away has every human been from it for all of time?

I assume this would be somewhere in antarctica, or maybe in the pacific? With a radius of surely not more than a few tens of kilometers, right? Maybe even less?

I would say let's, since we obviously wanna count ships, also count planes and subs. But let's not count astronauts.

Some clarifications:

• This is all on a map, height does not matter. Walking somewhere or flying over it is the same.
• We are talking absolutely noone has been closer than an absolute distance. If a single person has travelled there, the location is out.

In 'The Three Body Problem', we see a prominent scholar and professor being publicly beaten by the communist party for not denying God's existence. He goes on to say that 'Science hasn't provided any definitive answer'. So I'm curious, .

So, if you research the history of space exploration, you'll find one result keeps happening over and over and over and over.

They keep exploding.

It's not surprising. Their basic foundation is that they are rockets. Even from their original designs, rockets have always been built with the purpose of exploding. They're weapons. But, before they were weapons, the ORIGINAL idea, was to use the propulsion to exit Earths atmosphere and into space. The only problem is that when this was being designed, I forget the guys name, but he was a scientist that the nazis had captured. He designed the rockets for space craft. Hitler then took the designs and thought "Let's blow up London!"

So, once the war was over, the United States came over, and recruited him into NASA. His designs were how NASA got started. Modified versions of his original designs are what Apollo 11 used to get to the moon. So, the design CAN work. However, there were 10 Apollo missions before that didn't reach the moon. The first one ended disastrously.

The Challenger shuttle ended in disaster.

Even though they aren't NASA, recently in the past month Elon Musk's SpaceX had an explosion. Jeff Bezos also had a rocket explode. So this is still an issue.

And I always wondered, what would happen if you just took a commercial jet, and flew above the clouds? Well, they DO fly above the clouds. So what would happen if you just kept going "up"?

And I'm sure you can't just grab a stock Delta Airlines 747 and fly into orbit, but why not design a space craft, which more resembles the take-off of an airplane? Drives forward really fast, and then lifts? Except it's not flying NYC to LA. It just keeps lifting and lifting, until it's in orbit.

You could put thrusters on it to go forward in space. And then for landings, you wouldn't drop off into the ocean. You'd just land at an airport. The crazy thing is, the people of NASA are so talented, that they could route the whole thing, in a way that they land at whichever airport they want. So they'd know ahead of time NOT to schedule any landings or takeoffs for this 3 hour period of time when the space craft lands.

And I bet with enough time, they could get the experience to reduce that 3 hours, into 15 minutes. Knowing exactly when they'll arrive. Also no more of this breakaway pods that fall back to earth after detatching, or the other ones which just float out in space forever.

But I'm sure I can't be the only one with this idea, so I figure the most likely is that it's a scientific restriction. Where they can't do it, because......and this is where the explanation would be.

Anyone know the explanation?