@Nai54 My mom got AstraZeneca and had an antibody test done 2 weeks after her first shot. Turns out only one shot really isn't enough. She had slightly more antibodies than a not-vaccinated person but stil WAAAAY less than a fully vaccinated one
@Elmy @JourneymanGeek No, it's okay without this thing; only one single answer of mine would benefit from it, and it is just one answer after all; I haven't yet come across anybody else's answer where it would be needed.
Assuming that we have pure, distilled water at 25 °C:
its KH is 0 because it has nothing dissolved in it (more specifically, no carbonate nor bicarbonate ions);
its initial pH is 7 (which is neutral pH at at 25 °C).
Having said that, we must consider that water - unless it is stored in a sealed...
Uses square root in one of the steps to calculate pH before and after CO2 addition; I used <sup>1/2</sup> instead (raised to the power of 1/2) and it's a little sub-optimal, but not that bad as √ :D
@Elmy Oh thanks! :D
And not only square root, but also I feel it would be much more pleasant to the eyes and more clear if I was able to use horizontal fractions (what I mean by horizontal is fractions with horizontal dash) instead I had to use [A][B]/[C][D] (written in single line, just like it appears in this chat message).
And I did this using ([CO2 (aq)] ⋅ Koverall)<sup>1/2</sup> which means it is raised to the power of 1/2 and it is equivalent notation, but proper square root over the whole line would be cleaner.
That would be interesting. It doesn't add to your own rep, but you can use it to reward particularly good answers... that might be a decent way to try to draw in more participation in beta sites
Maybe I am wrong, but I could immediately see a problem with it: it generates x amount of reputation from "thin air", and two users could then agree to exchange it between themselves to create perpetual benefit without absolutely no input.
And also, in some sense it already exists: users over 15 rep get free 400 reputation a day which they cannot use themselves, but which they could award (in packets of 10) for posts of other people :D
@Sarov haha maybe not too different, but definitely interesting :D
@Sarov Oh yes, this is definitely a factor; if it was free x reputation to award as bounties if you are over 5000, then even on small site as Pets that would be about 30 bounties per month; it would dilute the value of setting bounties because they would not be special anymore.
@lila I dunno. On one hand, sure, bounties become more common so they might lose the 'ooh special' vibe, but they're still worth more and so would still be a draw. On the other hand, it's essentially debasing the currency of reputation, which would overall devalue it. Causing the current/existing value of votes/bounties to depreciate.
@lila A good workaround for that could be that you can't give a bounty to someone you've given one to in the past X months and/or to someone who's given you a bounty in the past X months.
@AllisonC Oh I like that. I was thinking preventing it from being given to those already above 5k, but your suggestion accomplishes the same but with less restriction.
I think it is essential that they require a conscious sacrifice where the reputation is not generated from "thin air" like in case of upv*tes, but instead it must be in a sense "ripped apart from your own flesh". Not many people are willing to rip apart their own numbers so this is rare; gold is also valuable because it is rare and beautiful (it is also useful ...
...because it does not corrode and reflects infrared extremely well, but has not been that useful until the modern era because it has poor mechanical properties).
@Sarov Basically a cool-down :) If you decide today that you want to throw a bounty on one of my answers, then I couldn't give you a bounty until, say, November. It makes it a lot harder to try to game the system.
Most of my meager rep over on Scifi actually came from a bounty someone gave me because I remembered the obscure kids' show they were trying to identify
@lila I just noticed that you are awarding a bounty to me (I think) on this question. I appreciate it and it is super kind of you but why are you doing so? My answer is already highly voted?
The rest of my rep over there is from a lot of people voting that same answer up for some reason, and from a happenstance comment on another that made me realize "Oh the reason this book they're trying to identify sounds like one I'd like is because I read it already
@Sarov Mining gold also requires huge sacrifices, days of finding huge nuggets laying around are mostly gone now, currently you need to freeze your rear end off for a few hours next to the river with a pan to collect a few microscopic specks of the metal, or process tons and tons of rock material with the use of highly toxic chemicals like mercury or cyanide.
Me neither ^.^ but did you know that if rocks contain more than 8 to 10 g of gold per metric ton (1000kg), then it is considered high grade gold ore? Highest grade underground gold mine in the world has gold content of 44.1 g per ton of rocks. And let that sink now: electronic garbage waste (discarded mobile phones, computer motherboards, etc.) contains about 80 to 800 g per ton of waste!
haha okay I think I understand :D it means that you will join once it reaches 180%, but getting from 90% to 180% will take 10 times as long as it took to get from 0% to 90% :(
@Nai54 I do not know if I understood the joke correctly in the first place, but my point is that I know they joke is what Sarov said now + once you go above 100% then the scale no longer makes any sense, and time estimates do not make any sense as well :D
@lila Time estimates never make sense... except when you average them. It's the Wisdom of the Crowd thing, basically.
Some tasks will be wildly overestimated. Some wildly underestimated. Hardly any will actually be right. But when you average all estimates, you end up with a decently accurate result.
Like if you held up a jar of jellybeans and asked 10,000 people to guess how many are inside. If you average (mean) the guesses, you'll actually end of with a close result - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd
@Nai54 Oh you are welcome, halfway through I realized that your avatar is this specific kind of picture that is easy for computers to draw, but not for me :/ sorry for low quality of it.
Assuming that we have pure, distilled water at 25 °C:
its KH is 0 because it has nothing dissolved in it (more specifically, no carbonate nor bicarbonate ions);
its initial pH is 7 (which is neutral pH at at 25 °C).
Having said that, we must consider that water - unless it is stored in a sealed...
