Triabolical_ t1_jal1i3n wrote

Radiation is all about bodies emitting photons, where the amount of energy depends upon how hot the body is. That's why fires feel warm, infrared heaters feel warm, and the sun feels warm.

Conduction is about direct heat transfer. Heat is just thermal movement of the atoms in a body, so put that in contact with a colder body and the hot atoms run into the colder atoms and make them move faster, transferring heat.

Convection is the same as conduction, except that the transfer is done through air.


Triabolical_ t1_ja16vpo wrote

Reply to Deck Question by pmljb

Go to and buy one of their deck building books.

Go to your permitting authority and ask for their guidelines and code requirements for building decks.


Triabolical_ t1_j9rm79r wrote

I support the ntr program because I also want to see somebody try to do one for real.

That doesn't mean I think they will be practical. The NASA reactor program is very conservative in their mass goals, and I can't find any details on what this project is actually trying to build.


Triabolical_ t1_j6gnn5c wrote

This is a bit confusing and there's a lot of incorrect information out there.

The aerobic system - which gives you power for low-intensity efforts - is dual-fuel. There is a pathway where it can be fueled by glucose (glycolysis/pyruvate oxidation) and another one where it can be fueled by fatty acids (beta oxidation). Both of those paths feed into what is known variously as the Krebs cycle or the TCA cycle.

The obvious question is how the body determines whether to burn fat or glucose. It's a bit complicated.

If your blood glucose is elevated from carb intake, your body will preferentially burn glucose to try to get the blood glucose to go back down.

If blood glucose is normal, then the body will burn glucose and fat based on the kind of training you have done. Mostly high carb training, you will burn glucose. Mostly low-carb training, you will burn more fat.

At higher intensities, the additional power only comes from glucose. So a highly-trained aerobic system is better for burning fat.

So, if you want to burn a lot of fat, you need to train your body with extended periods of zone 2 training without much glucose around. Fasted is the best, but you need to transition gradually or you can run out of glucose ("bonk"), which is no fun.

This also means that the idea that you should "eat carbs to fuel your workout" is bad advice for those who want to lose weight.


Triabolical_ t1_j6gm3wl wrote

Because the CEOs are playing a different game than you think they are playing.

CEOs are part of a club where they end up with golden parachutes - they make a lot of money even if the company does poorly - and their compensation is decided by their corporate boards, where board members are paid to be on the board.

This is true to a lesser degree in management in most companies - you become successful in management by how well you fit in and play the political games in the company. Being better at your job is not required and can actually be problematic as it makes others look bad.


Triabolical_ t1_j3kldz3 wrote

Insulin has a lifetime of about 5-6 minutes in the bloodstream - it is degraded by the insulin-sensitive tissues and also by the liver.

If somebody has insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes, they have hyperinsulinemia. This is because their body is constantly producing excess insulin because their liver is producing excess glucose.


Triabolical_ t1_j2f8v86 wrote

Fission gives free heat if you are either a) willing to build a heat-transfer system to get the heat where you want it or b) live right next to a nuclear reactor.


Triabolical_ t1_j2bzojl wrote

I've been foreperson on a couple of juries, one criminal, one civil.

In my state, jury decisions must be unanimous. Criminal trials require "beyond a reasonable doubt", and civil trails require "with a preponderance of evidence".

One of the interesting things about being on a jury is that jury members are forbidden to discuss anything about the trial during the trial and only talk about it when they are in deliberations.

The jury will get very specific instructions from the judge as to the specific legal requirements for finding guilt, and the jury will spend a lot of time discussing what those mean. If they have questions, they can ask the judge for clarification.

For criminal cases, it's difficult to convict because of the high standard. The case I was on was fairly easy as the prosecution witnesses were not deemed to be credible.

Our civil case was a bit easier to come to agreement on because a) it's not about putting somebody in jail and b) the jury gets to decide the monetary awards, which gives them a lot of flexibility. In the civil case I did 11 of us converged quickly but we had one holdout - we were able to reach an agreement by changing the award structure so that the person who won didn't get much in the way of damages.