PyRoMaNiA2014

Mark Watney, astronaut + text posts, Tumblr

I work in an obstetrician and gynaecologist’s office. we have to tell patients on a regular basis that they are binge drinking weekly when they think they are simply consuming a normal amount of alcohol on the weekends.

having more than 3 drinks in a single sitting if you have an estrogen based endocrine system is a binge that is medically significant.

having more than 5 in a sitting is a medically significant binge for someone with a testosterone based endocrine system.

every time you do this, it significantly impacts your risk of getting breast cancer, and damages your liver. it takes time to recover from that liver damage. if you’re having a 3-5 or more drink binge on a weekly basis, you are an alcoholic, medically speaking, and your liver is not recovering.

again: the bar for what binge drinking is, medically, is so much lower than what you think it is.

alcohol is a really toxic substance and not something you should fuck around with.

again: if you have an estrogenized hormone system (common for most women), then 3 drinks is a binge. if you have a testosteronized hormone system (common for most men), then 5 drinks is a binge.

anything above that number, consumed as frequently as weekly or more, and you’re medically a binge drinking alcoholic.

also, if you’re drinking any quantity of alcohol 6 days a week or more, that’s another threshold at which, medically speaking, you meet the definition of alcoholism. your liver needs more days without alcohol in your system than just one a week to recover and be healthy.

I don’t say any of this to shame anyone—to me, alcoholism or substance use disorders aren’t a sign of weakness or moral failing. and most of us genuinely don’t know this stuff.

information is key. you don’t have to stop drinking, but the utter lack of education on alcohol + the normalization of binge drinking in current society leads to many people drinking without any idea of what it’s doing to their bodies.

Because a vodka shot is not the same as (idk, some low alcohol percentage alcohol.)

From the second equation we get that cheeseburger plus fries-squared is five. Subtracting cheeseburger, which is six, from both sides, we get that fries-squared is negative-one. Math fans will know that there are two solutions to this; either fries are the "imaginary unit" 𝒾 or they are its negative, -𝒾. We'll do the rest of the problem with 𝒾, keeping in mind that at the end we should also take the complex conjugates as solutions.

Finally, we have that cup to the power of fries, minus cup, equals three. Replacing fries with 𝒾, and moving a cup to the other side, we get that cup-to-the-𝒾 is equal to cup-plus-three.

Now, the weird part about this is the cup-to-the-i. The problem with this is that complex exponentiation is technically not a thing. That is to say, there is no one function which is mathematically equal to "input-to-the-power-of-𝒾". In fact, there are infinitely many such functions.

Fortunately, due to reasons that take about six pages to explain (trust me I've done it), there is one particular function that many people have agreed is "the most reasonable one". This is not a mathematical notion, but a human preference. Seeing as this question was presumably written by a human, I am comfortable with using this function.

So, what function is this? Well, given a complex number r∠θ written in polar form (if you don't know what that means don't worry), where -π < θ ≤ π, then (r∠θ)^𝒾 = e^(-θ)∠ln(r).

Applying this to our problem a value r∠θ will be a possible solution for cup if e^(-θ)∠ln(r) = r∠θ + 3. Splitting this into real and imaginary parts, we get two equations: e^(-θ) cos(ln(r)) = r cos(θ) + 3 and e^(-θ) sin(ln(r)) = r sin(θ). We can graph these equations on Desmos:

let the value of the glass = z, for z ∈ ℂ:

z^(±i) = 3+z

let z = r·e^(iθ) for r,θ ∈ ℝ, -π < θ ≤ π

∴ z = r·e^i(θ+2πn) for all n ∈ ℤ

∴ (r·e^i(θ+2πn))^(±i) = 3+r·e^i(θ+2πn)

distribute powers (apologies for the use of ∓):

r^(±i)·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = 3+r·e^i(θ+2πn)

convert to the same base:

e^i(±ln(r))·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = 3+r·e^i(θ+2πn)

split into real and imaginary components:

re: cos(±ln(r))·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = 3+r·cos(θ)

im: sin(±ln(r))·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = r·sin(θ)

I just think you’re pretty neat.

NIH 3D Library (Free)

Embodi3D (Free and Paid)

MorphoSource (Free, database of fossils)

Scans can also be found by searching on general-purpose 3D sites like Thingiverse, Cults3D, MakerWorld, Sketchfab

The glow in the dark filament I used

More rarer images of Neil, my beloved:

20 years.

I find it so beautiful that this little rat's life has been remembered with love for 20 years and will be hopefully for decades to come. Truly a marvel of the internet.

Superhuman, the tech company behind the writing software Grammarly, is facing a class action lawsuit over an AI tool that presented editing suggestions as if they came from established authors and academics—none of whom consented to have their names appear within the product.

Imagine being so full of yourself that you think you can just use the literal most successful author alive's name without his consent.

2) That is how mirrors work! They can reflect things that are seemingly not in their "line of sight" because light is funny like that. Here's my own bathroom. Notice how a bit of the back wall is visible in the mirror, despite it being tucked waaaay back behind that sloped wall.

I encourage you to find a mirror and test this for yourself! Stand at 90 degrees to it, and see how it reflects things that are 90 degrees in the opposite direction.