Is this what’s meant by the null hypothesis?
Is this what’s meant by the null hypothesis?
Eh, depends. If it’s the around-the-neck kind of crystals, no way. If it’s in a radio circuit, now, that’s a different story.
Check out labgopher.com. I think that link was first posted to r/homelab back in the day, but I’ve kept it in my bookmarks for exactly this.
Yeah, I work for a Federal agency, and I can confirm this is an extremely plausible situation. Was probably a contractor.
based
And with that, FiskFisk33 was enlightened.
Certainly, I don’t disagree with that at all. And that’s likely part of the reason so few people publish failures, because there’s no “reward”. All I was saying is there’s still value there.
I wish more people would publish their failures. Definitive proof that a hypothesis is wrong is just as solid a result as definitive proof the hypothesis is right.
I hate that I can’t photosynthesize.
our our
Ok but a soda or carbonated water that has lost most of its target fizzyness quotient (scientific term) is still regarded as being flat even if it has some carbonation left. If it were a sliding scale instead of “a” vs “b”, then we could imagine a “locally flat” taste profile while admitting that the whole is not entirely flat. Which is a perfect description of Earth’s geometry.
I learned cursory electronics and circuits in my physics curriculum.
Being a lit review, it’s not a referreed publication, so no one to call them out on their bullshit. Funny that the author didn’t even bother reading their shit sandwich of a “review”.
Paging @pm_me_your_foucaults
Did you just assume that skeleton’s gender?
Also you have to publish a paper every month or you get extra punishment, and Tony never stops talking, demanding your time. Punishment for not publishing is you have to teach a freshman course on a trivial subject where all the students are barely smart enough to keep breathing on their own.
Cassowary?
This made me chuckle