IrritableOcelot
@IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org
- Comment on Call me 3 days ago:
It is how it’s generally taught in schools, which is unfortunate.
- Comment on Call me 4 days ago:
Nope. RNA is chemically different: different sugar in the backbone, and there are wayyyy more than 4 RNA bases (like 12 iirc)
- Comment on Call me 4 days ago:
Something called a “lesion” around a base mismatch, basically a bubble in the strand pairing. It can introduce kinks in the helix, and generally is the result of mutation in one strand.
- Comment on 🍃 🐑 1 week ago:
I mean honestly? If you’re not even keeping full cells from the prey, I think we can give it to them. Lil guy, you can photosynthesize. No need to bother them with the asterisks.
- Comment on Know thy enemy 1 week ago:
That is true, but part of improving our environmental impact will be decreasing that transport of raw materials, localizing chemical industries near the sources of their raw materials.
- Comment on The 1900s 4 weeks ago:
In chemistry a lot of the foundational synthesis and work is as old as the 60s and 70s; people build on it, but in some cases those early papers said pretty much all there is to be said on a topic, so there’s no reason to republish on it.
I’ve had to cite papers as old as the late 30s before, because no one has ever found anything to fix or correct about their work! Pretty impressive if you ask me, given how few tools they had.
- Comment on Publishers Always Innovating 4 weeks ago:
Truly. Also the springer nature ones load so slowly for absolutely no reason, and break 10% of the time. I really don’t get what their motivation is, do they think that after I’ve said no, I dont want a web version, I will be happy with a different web version?
- Comment on I shall exercise against you my right of rejection because you have treated me with contempt. 2 months ago:
Yeah, most dead scripts have Unicode, specifically because how the hell would you write academic papers about them in this day and age otherwise? Even old Irish Ogham:
ᚅᚖᚙᚗ
The line is a convention, because ogham was originally written on the corner of a stone stela.
- Comment on Eeeeee 3 months ago:
Look, I tried to solve this with Wolfram alpha, desmos, and nunerical integration in Python, but what does a subscript e even mean?? None of the methods I tried even returned a solution, which is kinda unsurprising…how do you integrate with respect to e, when e isnt a variable??
- Comment on Wasps 4 months ago:
Nothing against wasps, but they do not make honey.
- Comment on madlad 6 months ago:
Oh that would be so fun but my brain can’t math that…
- Comment on The best kind of acknowledgements 6 months ago:
Doing a study like this with no funding whatsoever is…suspect at best
- Comment on damn these rocks gay. good for them. good for them 6 months ago:
You also can’t mention it to the Dutch, they’ll get way too excited.
- Comment on Checks out to me. 6 months ago:
The thing about green photons having too much energy isn’t really true, though it’s commonly talked about. Blue photons are significantly higher-energy than green, and are very well-absorbed. There’s speculation that our sun (being a greenish star) just produces too many green photons, and absorbing so many so fast would be detrimental, but I haven’t seen that definitively proven yet. People are trying, though – there are all sorts of papers about making artificial supplementary antennae to absorb in the green region.
There are a couple proposed reasons to reflect green, which range from information theory arguments about decoupling different parts of the photosynthetic mechanism, to the ‘purple earth’ hypothesis mentioned in another comment, to the ‘green sun’ idea. My point is, the why of green photosynthesis is not a settled matter.
Also, the absorbance of red and blue photons isn’t because red and blue photons have useful energies, specifically. The photons excite electrons in a ‘high energy’ path and a ‘low energy’ path, yes, but the elections excited by these photons don’t directly do chemical work – these exitons are in a quantum-coupled system which is very complicated to understand (I won’t even pretend I understand it fully), and the reduction potentials further down the line are only indirectly (and not proportionally) connected to the energies of the original photons.
Basically, we have studied photosynthesis really intensively for like 50+ years, and in some ways it’s still basically magic. The more we study it, the more information we have, but more often than not that leaves us more confused, because it’s just a crazy system. And I, for one, think that’s pretty damn cool.
Will edit later with sources.
- Comment on figs 1 & 2 6 months ago:
Laziness. That figures.
- Comment on lick it: the redux 6 months ago:
That is generous on what you can lick…
About half of the green ones would still probably kill you, just…slowly.
- Comment on salmon 6 months ago:
Ahhhh it’s a humpy, I stand corrected. Not familiar with them. That’s absolutely wild!
- Comment on salmon 6 months ago:
Photoshopped, unfortunately. They change, but not that much.
- Comment on Brb 6 months ago:
I’ve tried multiple times to get the song ID to work, but the birdsong has to be so loud in the recording for it to detect it that I rarely get close enough to a bird for it to work. I was sad about that, it seemed so cool. And to be honest, for visual ID, I still prefer a bird book. Maybe it’s just a me thing.
- Comment on new organelle!!!! 6 months ago:
Sorry, I can’t figure out how to upload a non-image file.
- Comment on NASA 6 months ago:
One might say geocentric…Aristotle was right y’all.
- Comment on NASA 6 months ago:
Well, yeah. The earth is a better reference frame, but the orbital velocity of the moon (3679.2 km/h) is no less impressive.
- Comment on life decisions 7 months ago:
