Wait A Minute

So we have this breathless headline:

MIT scientists filed two patents on a new, 2D material that’s stronger than steel

Ummm… I always thought that two dimensions (length and width) mean that in mathematical and scientific terms the figure has no thickness — no matter how thin, the third dimension must exist for the figure to have substance — otherwise, it’s just a drawing.

And the explanation in the article doesn’t help:

“Instead of making a spaghetti-like molecule, we can make a sheet-like molecular plane, where we get molecules to hook themselves together in two dimensions,” said Strano, in the MIT blog post. “This mechanism happens spontaneously in solution, and after we synthesize the material, we can easily spin-coat thin films that are extraordinarily strong.”

It doesn’t matter if the third dimension (of the “thin film”) is only a trillionth of a micron thick, or the thickness of a molecule, it’s still >0.

Is this some kind of new math, or did somebody send out a memo redefining the dimensions?

I’m relying on a Reader Of Greater Brain than I to explain this to me.

Oh Noes

More from the world of dietary science:

Regular meat-eaters are more likely to suffer from chronic health conditions than those who shun or ration animal products, a study from the University of Oxford has found.
The research found a meat-lover who eats 70 grams of meat — processed or unprocessed — more than a peer is at 15 per cent higher risk of heart disease, 30 per cent more likely to get diabetes and almost a third (31 per cent) more likely to develop pneumonia in the future.

I did the work so you don’t have to:  70 grams is about 2.5 oz…

Whatever.  According to this lot, I should have died about 15 years ago, given that my daily breakfast contains inter alia  a large piece of boerewors.

And yet, here we are.

Risky Bidness

Apparently, some “experts” (standard warning applies) over in Britishland (same warning) have come up with a list of activities that carry a risk of catching Chinkvirus cooties, ranked according to risk level:

All FYI — as much of what is listed is pretty much commonsense.  I do wonder, though, how “protest march”, “rioting” and “looting” (some overlap) did not make the list.

Quote Of The Day

From !SCIENCE! comes this rather un-PC statement:

“To characterize this line of reasoning as having no basis in reality would be an egregious understatement. It is false at every conceivable scale of resolution.”

No, it’s not Marxist economics (although that might run a close second);  it’s this “gender spectrum” bullshit, which (like Marxist economics) only exists at all because people wish it to be true.

Here We Go Again


Climate change could wipe out up to HALF of all plant and animal life on Earth by 2070 if temperatures keep increasing, study warns
The impact of ‘maximum temperatures’ is more important for species survival
Experts tracked species in hundreds of locations to see how they handle heat
If temperatures rise by 3.6F we would still lose 20 per cent of plants and animals
If they rise by more than that we could lose up to half of all plants and animals

Yeah, and IF temperatures rise by 200 degrees we’d all melt into one big bouillabaise. As always, beware the weasel words like “could” and “if” (also “and”, “the” and all the other words these assholes use when they’re trying to scare us into doing something stupid).  And 2070, now?

The sad thing is that all this alarmism is affecting people — fortunately, just the ones who are fragile and easily conned.

People who suffer ‘eco-anxiety’ reveal their terror about the climate crisis is causing insomnia, depression and chest pain

I hope you all die from those symptoms because quite frankly, you’re all too fucking stupid to live.