The h Bar

ACuriousMind

16:03

In somewhat intuitive words, the spatial variation along $\sigma$ is $\mathrm{d}\omega$ at time $t$, which is given by evolving it with the flow, and the temporal variation along $I$ is given by feeding the vector determining the motion to $\mathrm{d}\omega$ and multiplying by the time step $\mathrm{d}t$. Their sum gives $\mathrm{d}\omega$ on $I\times\sigma$.

0celo7

@ACuriousMind I don't see why one needs the product rule or how the product rule gives that

Physics Meta

1

Q: Site sidebar appears below content in Google Chrome

As of right now, the sidebar is appearing below the content, with vertical and horizontal scrollbars around the #content div. Imagine there is a red freehand circle around the misplaced sidebar... This appears on Physics and Physics Meta, but I haven't seen it on any other sites. I'm using Go...

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 Oh. Sorry. Not the product rule indeed.

Slereah

16:31

Guys guys

I was reading Straumann and

ACuriousMind

Wat. Why would OP approve that edit?!

Slereah

There's a theorem that fixes the Einstein equation based on a few properties? :O

0celo7

Yes.

Lovelock.

Slereah

But then what about the theories of gravitations with like

The Cotton tensor or $\square R$ in them

0celo7

Two derivatives.

Slereah

16:33

wot

Oh right, it's a third derivative for square

But what about the cotton tensor

Or whatevs

0celo7

Dunno about it off the top of my head.

Write a paper and contradict the theorem.

Get a Fields Medal or some crap

Slereah

Ugh

who wants a Fields medal

I already have a bunch cluttering my drawers

0celo7

@ACuriousMind Not the product rule. Well, what is it then :D

Slereah

I really need to read all the initial condition shit for GR really

Seems to be a complex problem

not as simple as I thought

0celo7

Have you not read chap 7 in HE?

I'm gonna take PDE classes just so I can really appreciate it

Slereah

16:39

I have perused it

Not in detail tho

I don't know too much about sobolev spaces and such

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 We have $\mathrm{d}(H\gamma) = \mathrm{d}g^t \gamma = \partial_{x^i}(g_t\gamma)\mathrm{d}x^i + \partial_t(g^t\gamma)\mathrm{d}t = \mathrm{d}(g^t\gamma) + X\gamma\mathrm{d}t$.

Slereah

I don't even know all that much about solutions of PDEs in general

Like I vaguely know the Picard Lindenhof theorem

But that's aboot it

ACuriousMind

@Slereah Lindelöf.

Slereah

Yes Lindy Hop

That's her

Lindt and Hoff

0celo7

@ACuriousMind same thing

@ACuriousMind wat

and how does that do anything?

ACuriousMind

16:47

@0celo7: I should add that the first $\mathrm{d}g^t\gamma$ considers $g^{\dot{}}$, really, i.e. the flow as a function of $x$ and $t$, while the second $\mathrm{d}(g^t\gamma)$ considers the flow as a function of $x$ at a fixed time $t$.

0celo7

I is confused

how does that actually help solve the problem?

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 Plugging that into $(H\gamma)^*\mathrm{d}\omega$ gives the formula I wrote down earlier.

0celo7

whaaaat

ACuriousMind

(The "write/prove" in the hint)

0celo7

oh

because $(H\gamma)^*\mathrm{d}\omega=\mathrm{d}[(H\gamma)^*\omega]$?

err

still confused how plugging that in solves the problem

ACuriousMind

16:50

@0celo7 Because $f^*\psi(v_1,\dots,v_n) = \psi(\mathrm{d}f(v_1),\dots,\mathrm{d}f(v_n)$ for any $n$-form by definition of the pullback.

0celo7

@ACuriousMind ffs I knew that

pls believe me

but I still don't see how that solves the problem

sniff

problem here meaning $(H\gamma)^*\mathrm{d}\omega$

I'm bad at plugging in, apparently

@Slereah what is the cotton tensor

Slereah

Oh wait

Cotton tensor is third derivative, too

nvm

0celo7

what is it??

Slereah

It is used in like

Weirdo theories of gravity?

0celo7

definition man

Slereah

16:55

$C_{ijk} = \nabla_{k} R_{ij} - \nabla_{j} R_{ik} + \frac{1}{2(n-1)}\left( \nabla_{j}Rg_{ik} - \nabla_{k}Rg_{ij}\right). $

0celo7

the hell

what does it mean

Slereah

apparently it is linked to conformal invariance

and conformal flatness

if C = 0 then it is conformally flat

0celo7

$$(H\gamma)^*\mathrm{d}\omega(\xi)=\mathrm{d}\omega(\mathrm{d}(H\gamma)\xi)= \mathrm{d} \omega([\mathrm{d}(g^t\gamma)+X(\gamma)\mathrm{d}t]\xi)$$

Slereah

IIRC like the variation of $R^2$ or $R_{ab} R^{ab}$ gives a Cotton tensor

Hence why it is sometimes found for renormalization

0celo7

@ACuriousMind dunno how to contintue

Slereah

17:00

I would tell you more but the answer is in my Birrell and I don't know where it is and it is cold and I don't want to leave my blanket

Oh wait there it is

Hm, no Cotton tensor apparently

Only some weird ass H tensor

Ghost

dangit! Almost had an answer completed, but was answered by another member...

oh well, discarding the answer - hate wasting my time like that

put a different answer up instead

not that anyone cares

0celo7

@Slereah lol

@Ghost is their answer better?

Ghost

well, it got downvoted, so I am deleting it anyway

I'll put the reference as a comment - at least I can't get downvoted for not being technical enough in comments

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 God, all this notation is terrible. I just realized some of my "$+$" are actually "$\oplus$" and we'd need to retrace some steps. I'm not confident in giving you hints/advice right now.

David Z

4

Q: What is the purpose of froth in washing clothes?

I stay at a rented place and there is no washing machine. I, now, wash clothes in a bucket. When I add detergent, sometimes there is froth, sometimes there is not. I wonder if this had any impact on the washing process. Though I am aware of micelles and all that, but I wonder if froth formation i...

everyday-life physical-chemistry

off topic?

0celo7

17:14

@ACuriousMind D:

fix the notation

David Z

It seems clearly so to me, but given that it hasn't gotten any close votes or anything I didn't want to close it unilaterally

ACuriousMind

@Ghost It's perfectly fine to answer a question someone else has answered. If you typed a long answer and someone else beats you by a few minutes, I don't think people would look down on you for posting it anyway.

@DavidZ off-topic.

Ghost

question - I have a question churning in my mind (has been churning for a while) and even after quite some research, I can not quite get a grasp on the topic - but the question is not high level theoretical physics (it's more high school teacher experimental level) - I guess that would be slammed, downvoted, spat on and closed?

@ACuriousMind I did answer, it got downvoted, so that answers that question (for me anyway)

ACuriousMind

@Ghost ...how on earth did you get that impression?

Ghost

@ACuriousMind just been observing and reading

Danu

17:17

@DavidZ Chemistry indeed!

@Ghost Why don't you release it into chat first, as a probe of sorts ;)

ACuriousMind

@Ghost If your question is well-posed and about a concept or step in a derivation rather than how to build something or how to do the derivation at all, it's on-topic. What would the close reason that you anticipate be?

Ghost

I was told by a couple of colleagues to be wary of posting my 'level' of questions on this aite

Danu

@yuggib Sounds like Grothendieck's work: Certain objects he worked on still haven't been satisfactorily defined, have they?

Slereah

Lindy Hop

The Lindy hop is an American dance that evolved in Harlem, New York City, in the 1920s and 1930s and originally evolved with the jazz music of that time. It was very popular during the Swing era of the late 1930s and early 1940s. Lindy was a fusion of many dances that preceded it or were popular during its development but is mainly based on jazz, tap, breakaway and Charleston. It is frequently described as a jazz dance and is a member of the swing dance family. In its development, the Lindy hop combined elements of both partnered and solo dancing by using the movements and improvisation of black...

Danu

@Ghost Give it a shot!

Slereah

17:18

The most famous mathematician

Danu

@Slereah Lindy hop is so great

0celo7

@Slereah lol

ACuriousMind

It always amazes me that one part of the user base considers this site "dominated by high-level theoretical physics" and the other part complains that there is not enough high level theoretical phyiscs.

Slereah

The site is really dominated by homework questions :p

Ghost

@Danu to be honest, I am not all that confident

ACuriousMind

17:20

I've not yet worked out if this is due to differing definitions of "high-level theoretical physics" or because everyone thinks their own brand of questions is too few.

yuggib

@Danu What does it sound like Grothendieck? I cannot see the message it is referring to...

(also, how to see the message one message is linked to, when the linked ones are old?)

Slereah

Really I think this site needs more high level GR questions :p

It's mostly QFT

ACuriousMind

@yuggib Click the little arrow.

@Slereah Jeez, there isn't enough QFT, it's mostly QM :P

Ghost

@ACuriousMind the fact is though, the impression this site has (at least according to the people who advised me to be wary) a reputation for being high level and theoretical based. That my level of understanding would be seriously frowned upon

Slereah

That too

Danu

17:21

@Ghost Come on, it aint so scary

Ghost

in fact many have said not to post the question here at all

Slereah

Also maybe we need less questions like

yuggib

@ACuriousMind Thanks :)

Slereah

"Is spacetime real???"

Danu

@yuggib It's a reply to your starred message "a good definition should be the hypothesis of a theorem"

Slereah

17:22

(IT IS NOT)

ACuriousMind

@Slereah Obviously it's quaternionic :P

Ghost

@Danu to be honest, to a newcomer like me - it actually is

Danu

@ACuriousMind Don't discriminate against non-associativity!

Slereah

@ACuriousMind : Don't make me get out the GR with quaternion paper

Danu

I know that non-associative quantum mechanics will be the next big thing

(if I were to believe the Corfu guys...)

ACuriousMind

17:23

@Ghost I'll not debate the fact that we have far more theoretical questions than other physics questions. I would dispute it being particularly "high level", though.

Danu

@Ghost Hmm... I mean... it's not like we can actually harm you in any way?

Ghost

and I am not one to just put an unresearched question up either, this particular topic i have been researching myself for a while - got quite a library, but there is just a couple of aspects confuse me somewhat

yuggib

@Danu It's a quote by Glimm; however as I understand it, even categories à la Grothendieck are well defined, because you should fix an universal set

Ghost

@ACuriousMind 'high level' is relative and subjective

Danu

@Ghost At this point, I think you're just teasing us...

@yuggib The topoi and stuff, too?

Ghost

17:24

@Danu no, I am most certainly not!

yuggib

@Danu I don't know about that...maybe these things have not-so-clear definitions

ACuriousMind

@yuggib Did you want to say "aren't", and why not just fix it (I think the common attitude is "fix the universe to be as large as we need for this application)?

Ghost

@Danu I assure you that I have researched this topic quite a lot, and have sourced several sites, papers etc

Danu

I don't understand why you're being so insecure then.

It sounds kinda ridiculous

considering the average level of the questions on this site...

yuggib

@ACuriousMind Grothendieck universe is a set

used to avoid the use of proper classes

so categories are always sets there

Ghost

17:26

@Danu the majority of questions are over my head

ACuriousMind

@yuggib Hm, I think I just misunderstood what you wanted to say with your reply to Danu, nevermind.

Ghost

@Danu I am probably just a fraction more advanced in training/self-directed research than a layman

yuggib

@ACuriousMind no problem, also my sentence was not in perfect Oxford english...

(as all my other sentences actually)

Danu

@Ghost I'm not going to try even harder to make you post your question: Just do it...

Ghost

and get downvoted and slammed, yeah right...

Danu

17:29

@Ghost Okay, if you wanna be negative like that, be like that... :P

I'm starting to think I have an idea who you are...

Ghost

who I am?

Danu

There was a user a while back who acted very similarly.

Hmm, looking at your answers does make it implausible.

Ghost

I have never been a member here before?

Danu

@Ghost Yeah, you're probably not the same guy

Ghost

I am telling you, I have not been a member here before

Danu

17:32

51 secs ago, by Danu

@Ghost Yeah, you're probably not the same guy

Ghost

There is not 'probably' about it

ACuriousMind

@Danu Had the same thought, but I really don't think he's ever coming back.

Ghost

well... that was surreal

my point before is that what you guys consider as not 'high level', may be due to your advanced training (comparatively) - but these questions are high level to those of us who are not so well trained, and it is very intimidating to even try and put the question together that would be, at least, passable.

Danu

The guy has a history of leaving and coming back under different pseudonyms...

@Ghost I think you're judging us before you've tried us.

Huy

there seems to be one of those guys on each part of SE

Ghost

17:41

@Danu probably - but that is the impression I had even before joining, when I was advised not to join

@Danu who is this 'guy'?

Danu

@Ghost I will not attempt to convince you then.

@Ghost Just some guy...

It doesn't matter much.

Ghost

and you suspected I was that guy?

Danu

Yea

Glen The Udderboat

@Ghost What's your question?

Ghost

@GlenTheUdderboat thank you for asking - my question is about an experimental way to determine impurities (e.g. internal scratches etc) in a lens using optical means

Glen The Udderboat

17:46

@Ghost You mean by looking at it?

Ghost

I mean subvisible imperfections

Danu

This is pretty funny, and it touches upon some typical social flaws of mathematicians ^^

Ghost

@GlenTheUdderboat looking at subvisible imprefections, so far, I gathered that polarised light may be useful

Glen The Udderboat

@Ghost Why not just throw a ton of normal light at it and look for unexpected reflections/pass-throughs?

Ghost

@GlenTheUdderboat it would be also useful to measure the degree of distortion these imperfections cause

I have been trying to find (and understand) a theoretical basis, so as to post a question

Glen The Udderboat

17:52

@Ghost Why would an imperfection cause a degree of distortion?

Danu

@Ghost That sounds like a really nice question!

Ghost

@GlenTheUdderboat maybe not the right word for it (I am not a physicist)

Danu

We need more experimental questions!

Ghost

Thinking about it, 'degree' is probably not a useful term - perhaps 'magnitude'

an imperfection would cause some degree of refraction wouldn't it?

@Danu very funny

Glen The Udderboat

@Ghost An imperfection would tend to be somewhat irregular in the whole picture (right?). So, I'd say, that you only had to look for irregular patterns in the out-coming light. Unless of course, the irregularity is designed to trick you.

Ghost

17:57

@GlenTheUdderboat like a secret message in the internal scratches? I love it!

Glen The Udderboat

@Ghost Look, I don't even know what an "internal scratch" is supposed to be, so don't ask me but ask the community.

Ghost

@GlenTheUdderboat sorry!

0celo7

@ACuriousMind Before my time?

Ghost

I meant internal imperfections

0celo7

Or was I just not paying attention?

Ghost

18:01

@GlenTheUdderboat did not mean to annoy you, was trying to answer your questions

Glen The Udderboat

@Ghost You're not annoying me. I'm just letting you know that I don't know anything.

Ghost

@GlenTheUdderboat ah okay - misunderstood (again)

so, would it be a worthwhile question?

Danu

@Ghost Stop pretending like we hate you---it comes across as quite childish, to me.

Ghost

@Danu excuse me? I never said that

Glen The Udderboat

@Ghost Sure. Why not.

Ghost

18:06

@GlenTheUdderboat Thank you, thank you for helping me refine my wording before - that is actually quite encouraging

@Danu
http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/24706262#24706262

it is just an observation that a lot of members have had an impressive amount of training, and have done even more impressive amount of research - this can be intimidating to a new user who has far less training and ha contributed little to nothing to the science (yet).

I am just a lab tech for a high school

Danu

Nobody currently in chat really has done any serious research (just saying).

Though we (most of us, anyways) do have some training

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 Not sure, but if you don't remember someone constantly telling us how mean we are to experimentalists and getting offended at jokes about cooking meth, then it was probably before your time.

Ghost

the training comes through in all of your posts that I have read - impressive reads (I understand some of it)

Glen The Udderboat

@Ghost You're not learning anything here.

Ghost

@GlenTheUdderboat say what?

Slereah

18:15

what were the chemist jokes before Breaking Bad

Was it making explosives

ACuriousMind

@Slereah I think it was cooking LSD.

Danu

@ACuriousMind Yup :P

Glen The Udderboat

@Slereah In my home town the chemistry teacher blew up his house. I assume that that happened in all towns.

Slereah

was he cooking meth

Glen The Udderboat

@Slereah Probably meth was a bit before his time, but who knows?

Ghost

18:19

@GlenTheUdderboat well, I am gone ahead and wrote the question

Danu

@Ghost :D

Glen The Udderboat

@Ghost Good.

Danu

It seems like a good question (+1), though I have no idea how to help you find an answer

Slereah

Meth is pretty old

Ghost

@GlenTheUdderboat but seriously, you helped me clarify what I was in need of asking

I appreciate that

ACuriousMind

18:22

@Danu I don't like how that article seems to imply that pop science is the way to go :P

Danu

@ACuriousMind Well...

Ghost

what is 'pop-science'?

ACuriousMind

@Ghost Acting as if one could explain technical results of modern physics by classical everyday analogies and without math. :P

Huy

or explain math without math

Ghost

@ACuriousMind ah, sort of like a worse nightmare version of Twitter Physics?

@Huy I think I have seen that - even my brain detected it! - I think an article I read used kittens as a strange and ineffective analogy for integration

@Danu I can probably now prove my colleagues wrong (the ones who advised not to join or ask questions here)

Huy

18:28

@Ghost: there's a website for students to chat here and someone asked a while ago how the abstract of a thesis should be written. the most popular answer by students was "the abstract is a summary of your thesis that is understandable for laymen".

@Danu you ever planning to study functional analysis? or have you already?

Ghost

@Huy yes, that would make sense - I read one of my boss's thesis abstract... got a migraine and almost spontaneously combusted

0celo7

@ACuriousMind Well you are mean to experimentalists. And you're a meth dealer.

Huy

I don't think I've ever seen an abstract of a maths article that would be understandable for anyone just having finished high school. but obviously it's just us mathematicians being unable to express ourselves properly!

Danu

@Huy A little bit---I don't really like it much.

But it's ubiquitous in physics.

Huy

why do you not like it, @Danu?

Danu

18:32

@Huy I'm not a fan of analysis

Ghost

@Huy that reminds me of a funny-ish story, of an unintentional owning of one of my many bosses

ACuriousMind

@Huy It's linear algebra's ugly older brother.

Huy

do you by any chance have too much free time and want to go through a book with me? I think I'd be much more motivated if I found someone to study with =_=

@ACuriousMind: I've studied it a bit already, but I'm revising it atm

Danu

@ACuriousMind Disgusting old aunt, you mean.

Huy

I find it much more beautiful than linear algebra tbh

Danu

18:33

@Huy me?

Huy

@Danu yes you

Danu

What book do you have in mind, haha.

Ghost

Most of my training was from my years in the Army

Huy

@Danu: the one my prof wrote, I find it much more interesting and motivating than others

@Danu: it's available online for free

Danu

@Huy Author/title?

Huy

18:35

@Danu: dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2098511/FAnotes.pdf still WIP though

Danu

@Huy What kind of time scale did you have in mind.

I won't be able to do anything less than the order of 1-2 years.

Huy

@Danu: I don't know, I'm just revising it and mostly want to focus on the last chapters (10-11)

@Danu: the chapters aren't all building up, so it's possible to jump to chapters one is interested in (at least it says so in the introduction)

Ghost

@Danu my physics 'training' was from on the ground as an Army Engineer - was getting good, until I learnt first hand what ballistics can do, particularly momentum

Huy

I'm currently revising 2-4 and then I'll see if I can jump right into 10, but I doubt it so I'll check what else I need

Danu

@Ghost You... got shot?

Ghost

18:38

@Danu yes

Danu

That sucks :(

Huy

@Danu: is the "interpretation" of the Laplacian via the Proposition in section 1.4 very common amongst physicists? I'm quite ashamed to admit I haven't thought about it that way so far and it makes a lot more sense to me now

Ghost

it did for a while, then I recovered - after a bit of physiotherapy and surgery, I am pretty much all good now

Danu

@0celo7 Borderline offensive...

@Huy Which proposition/interpretation?

Huy

@Danu: Prop 1.16, right at the beginning of section 1.4

Danu

18:41

I see no interpretation there.

ACuriousMind

@Huy Yes. The lattice version of the Laplacian is just the average over next neighbours and is used all the time.

Huy

ACM has secretly already finished the book =_=

0celo7

Never seen it

ACuriousMind

Well, used all the time among the people who have to discretize stuff to put it on their computers

Danu

That something that satisfies the laplacian is its average over a sphere around it?

That's the normal interpretation AFAIK.

0celo7

18:44

I thought it was the divergence of the gradient...

TIL there's an interpretation

Huy

that's what I did too

I always thought about it as the divergence of the gradiant

but I find it much easier to think about it as the average now

Danu

I think of soap films.

Huy

but I hate minimal surfaces

0celo7

Soap films?

Danu

Films of soap

0celo7

18:52

@ACuriousMind Will we continue on the Cartan identity exercise?

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 You may well continue, but I'm not really motivated to work through it in detail.

Danu

@0celo7 Cartan identity as in the $\iota_X \mathrm{d}+\mathrm{d}\iota_X=\mathcal L_X$?

0celo7

Well I have no clue how to continue

You're my only hope

@Danu Yes

Unless your notes use Stokes theorem and some homotopy formula to derive it, it's not what I'm looking for.

Danu

@0celo7 That's ridiculous---why would you do that?

It's much more elementary.

0celo7

I know!

Just use induction. But that's not what the book wants.

Danu

19:00

Induction?

The proof I know does not use induction.

1) Check it on functions. 2) See both commute with $\mathrm{d}$ which shows that they coincide on one-forms. 3) Use the derivation property to conclude they coincide on arbitrary forms (when written in local coordinates). 4) Finish by noting the operations are local.

0celo7

Well I meant induction by step 3

Danu

That's not induction.

0celo7

Er, other way around

Fine

Whatever

The book wants me to do it another way

Danu

Which book would that be?

0celo7

Arnold, page 198

btw the only reason I said induction was because I read your notes

and I swear to Christ I remember them saying induction

Danu

19:05

No.

0celo7

post please?

Danu

Since they are derivations
LX (α ∧ β) = (LX α) ∧ β + α ∧ (LX β) (5.101)
they also agree on forms of type fdg1 ∧ · · · ∧ dgn.

(this is step 3)

also I'm not going to fix that TeX

0celo7

well I apologize

I know there's no induction

but I thought your notes said it

and I figured it was some induction like thing

Danu

No worries :P

0celo7

now you think I don't know what induction is

great

anyway

if you could help with the second problem on page 198

Huy

19:07

prove by induction $\sum_{k=0}^n k = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$

0celo7

using the hint

I'd be very grateful

@Huy well, it works for n=1

Danu

@Huy This is pretty simple

0celo7

and it is consistent for $n+1$

Huy

@Danu: it was sarcasm

0celo7

so it works for all $n$

Danu

19:08

@0celo7 No time

0celo7

something along those lines

Huy

as a joke because 0celo7 doesn't know how induction works

-.-

0celo7

@Huy ?

@Huy wtf was that wrong?

Huy

lol

0celo7

seriously, don't f with me bro

Huy

19:09

xD

0celo7

I'm testing out of a class and induction is covered

Danu

lel

0celo7

can someone please just help me with this problem!!!!!!!!!

Danu

Why don't you post it on Mathematics?

0celo7

Because it's homework?

Huy

19:11

-.-

we have a different policy regarding HW

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 you do realize that math.SE has a very different homework policy, yes?

Huy

because we can

Danu

@0celo7 Have you ever been to Mathematics? It's literally just homework over there.

Huy

@Danu: now you're a bit exaggerating =(

2

Danu

@Huy $\geq 90 \%$

Huy

19:15

yes, that's true

unfortunately

0celo7

I will post it when I get home.

::returns to crystals::

Slereah

19:27

Death to homeworks shakes torch

0celo7

20:52

@Slereah indeed

I've been ruined by this site's draconian policies

Ghost

@0celo7 draconian policies?

0celo7

hang all experimentalists, etc.

Ghost

say what?

0celo7

if an experimentalist shows up in phys.se hq, he or she will be hanged

Ghost

what about lab techs?

0celo7

20:56

they're not worth bothering with

maybe fudge the wiring somewhere and they die of an unfortunate accident :)

ACuriousMind

@0celo7: Please remember that sarcasm is difficult to detect online, and that other people can't know what your actual views are.

3

ArtOfCode

falls over in shock

A self-moderating chatroom??

2

0celo7

wait, you're telling me we don't hang experimentalists

::puts away rope::

Ghost

@0celo7 thank you so very much

0celo7

@ArtOfCode more like ACM is starting to feel responsibility for me

he's like a mother duck

ArtOfCode

20:59

...debating whether to point out the obvious gender flaw there

0celo7

@Ghost I am a lab tech you know

for now

one day I will run the lab

Ghost

@0celo7 likewise - that is a relief

Transcript for