For those who did a search only to get back pages of less-than-useless SEO slop that just recites the number line, here is something that better describes some of the grammatical insanity.
also, czterydzieści cztery is imo one of the less pronounceable words (well, two of them) in Polish.
I know that this is partially a joke, but I was trying to figure out what kind of lab would be done to produce chloroform that would be appropriate for students (recent OSHA crackdown on chloromethanes notwithstanding)… haloform reaction I suppose? Is that a common teaching lab experiment?
My mom took my little brother to participate in a child psych study like this when he was a toddler (mom had some ties to the university). It was a very similar experiment with skittles as the prize. My brother sat staring glumly at the candy the whole time. The test administrator was increasingly enthusastic with praise after each round right up until the end when she congratulated him and said that he could have the whole bag. He said “no thanks” and ran back to mom crying because he was told there would be candy but they only had skittles, which he very much did not like (and for that matter still doesn’t). The administrator was apparently embarrassed and told my mom that she thought that all kids liked skittles…
dontthinkaboutitdontthinkaboutitdontthinkaboutit
According to my buddy who worked for Dow, part of these “savings” apparently was taking a hatchet to their R&D segment with a bunch of spray-and-pray layoffs (apparently a common happening these days). I realize Dow is mostly commodity chemicals these days which is much more preservative in nature than other segments of the chemical industry, but even so it sounds like they are killing any hope of competing with new technologies and moving to the “squeeze as much as possible out before it goes tits up” stage.
A bunch of electrons? Nah F only ever wants just one more than its natural allotment. But it is extremely, violently jealous of that electron.
If it was an x-ray, isn’t it a little weird to use a radioactive probe (or contrast agent)? I thought that for GI things it is usually a just contrast agent that absorbs x-rays really well… barium or some shit.
If I stood up straight, my eye level was above the window. Also, glove boxes. The shorter group members could use platforms to raise their height but had trouble reaching the corners, while I had to do a mix of taking an uncomfortably wide stance and slouching. I wish they had been more suitable for my height… I thought everything would be better with taller hoods in my current workplace, but all they did was extend the sash to the floor.
If those undergrads could figure out how to turn acetone into TNT…
EHS would raise hell if they caught us putting waste solvent in anything but a hazardous waste container…
Hey look, it’s a kürzlich aufgebauter vom Aufbauprinzip verbauter Bau
Edit: also, the configuration is referring to silver for those curious. Not my first choice, but whatever floats OP’s boat (Baute?) I suppose.
It doesn’t work as well spoken, though? Pretty sure Police is pronounced something like po-lee-tseh.
Also, I think you might have swapped a police with Police: “Police police, (whom) Police police police, police Police police.”
The intended joke is that hypervalent iodine compounds like Dess-Martin periodinane flip between different oxidation states like you often see for transition metals. As an example, the mechanism usually drawn for oxidations by DMP is similar to those drawn for PCC/Jones reagent, where the electrons removed from the substrate are “banked” at the metal center. Obviously, redox chemistry is not at all limited to transition metals, but I am often surprised at iodine’s propensity to engage in it. A lot of research over the past decade or two has also developed redox catalysis with these reagents, reactivity which is commonly (though again not always) the purview of transition metals.
Iodine is a transition metal I will die on this hill.
δ 8.52 - 0.91 ppm (m, 56 H). e z
What about ChemE then? They’re both. Sort of. Okay maybe they’re not chemists, but… chemistry-adjacent.
So I found this website that lists specific heat capacities for various foods, and while it doesn’t list “snacks”, dry foods values seem to range from 0.3 to 1 cal•g-1•K-1 = 0.0003 to 0.001 Cal•g-1•K-1. Assuming no phase change (i.e., melting) and otherwise temperature-invariant heat capacity, the energy required for heating a 100 g snack from freezer temps (-18 °C) to body temp (37 °C) is 1.65 to 5.5 Cal. More realistically, we can compare to eating an ambient-temp (20 °C) snack; that difference is only 1.1 to 3.8 Cal… in either case, the difference is negligible, generally < 1% of the calorie count of the snack itself.
And yet the f block is missing entirely. Oh, the sacrifices we make!
6th period onward looks a little funny…
I don’t know much about this, but I can’t help but think that “complete” and “consistent” are doing a lot more work in that sentence than my current understanding of the terms would lead me to believe.