#curie — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #curie, aggregated by home.social.
-
#FAYETTE #ALABAMA semantic-search.aepiot.ro/advanced-sea... #MARIA #SKŁODOWSKA #CURIE chatgpt.com?prompt=Analy... SEO - Creates Semantic Nodes and Clusters. AÉPIOT ( #aePiot ): INDEPENDENT SEMANTIC WEB 4.0 INFRASTRUCTURE (EST. 2009): aepiot.ro
MultiSearch Tag Explorer -
#FAYETTE #ALABAMA semantic-search.aepiot.ro/advanced-sea... #MARIA #SKŁODOWSKA #CURIE chatgpt.com?prompt=Analy... SEO - Creates Semantic Nodes and Clusters. AÉPIOT ( #aePiot ): INDEPENDENT SEMANTIC WEB 4.0 INFRASTRUCTURE (EST. 2009): aepiot.ro
MultiSearch Tag Explorer -
#MARIE #CURIE advanced-search.aepiot.ro/advanced-sea... #MARIANNE #VON #WEREFKIN semantic-search.aepiot.ro/advanced-sea... github.com/globalaudien... aePiot: Integrating current systems into Web 4.0. Build nodes, dominate the SEO future.
MultiSearch Tag Explorer -
#MARIE #CURIE advanced-search.aepiot.ro/advanced-sea... #MARIANNE #VON #WEREFKIN semantic-search.aepiot.ro/advanced-sea... github.com/globalaudien... aePiot: Integrating current systems into Web 4.0. Build nodes, dominate the SEO future.
MultiSearch Tag Explorer -
What Marie Curie Left Behind https://hackaday.com/2025/06/10/what-marie-curie-left-behind/ #polonium #Science #radium #Curie
-
Heute wäre Pierre #Curie 166 Jahre alt geworden. Bei der Entdeckung der #Radioaktivität spielten er und seine Frau Marie eine wichtige Rolle. 1898 entdeckten sie u.a. #Radium, ein chemisches Element mit ausschließlich radioaktiven Isotopen.
Obwohl die Curies schon früh vor den Gefahren durch Radium warnten, wurde es als gesundheitsfördernd angepriesen und u.a. in Lebensmitteln und Medikamenten verarbeitet. Zwischenfälle mit Kranken und Toten machten später vielen Menschen die Risiken klar.
-
On this day in 1610, the only recorded performance of Shakespeare's play "Macbeth" during his lifetime. #Shakespeare
On this day in 1862, the first pasteurisation test is completed by Louis Pasteur and Claude Bernard. #Pasteurisation
On this day in 1902, Marie and Pierre Curie discover the radioactive element radium. #Curie #Science
On this day in 1951, surgeon Dan Gavriliu surgically reconstructed a human organ for the first time. #Surgery
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
#RukiiNet #SelfHosting update:
Just after writing this #Curie went down again, and it didn't help that the #NFS pods were all on a different node. It all went down regardless.Even got some data corruption again, it's always a huge manual hassle to bring everything back up. I read somewhere that #MicroK8S tends to be bad with hard reboots if some specific singleton cluster pods like coredns or calico or nfc controller or hostpath provisioner are on the node which goes down. I wonder if it's possible to just add replicas for those...
I found a new (old and known) bug with #OpenEBS, and a mitigation. In some cases, #Jiva has replicas in a readonly state for a moment as it syncs the replicas, and if the moon phase is correct, there's an apparent race condition where the iSCSI mounts become read-only, even though the underlying volume has already become read-write.
To fix this is to go to the node which mounted these, do "mount | grep ro,", and ABSOLUTELY UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE UNMOUNT (learned the hard way). Instead, I think it's possible to just remount these rw.
There's also an irritating thing where different pods run their apps with different UIDs, and the Dynamic NFS Provisioner StorageClass needs to be configured to mount the stuff with the same UID. I originally ran this by just setting chmod 0777, but the apps insist on creating files with a different permission set, so when their files get remounted, their permissions stay but the UID changes, and after a remount they don't have write access to the files anymore.
This compounds with the fact that each container runs on its own UID, so each needs its own special StorageClass for that UID... Gods.
I got the new #IntelNUC for the fourth node in the cluster to replace the unstable Curie node, but memories for it are coming Thursday.
-
#January 7, 1877
#OTD Margarete von Wrangell, Baltic German Agricultural #Chemist, is born.Her career highlights include working w/ Marie #Curie, becoming the 1st female full #Professor at a German University, & running Germany's Institute for Plant Nutrition.
Her grave is inscribed:
I lived with the #Plants.
I put my ear to the ground
& it seemed to me as if the plants were #Happy to be able to share something about the #Secrets of their growth.
