I hadn't heard about bulldog ants before and was incredulous about your statement, but damn, yeah, bulldog ants are wild

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrmecia_(ant)#interaction%20with%20humans

You're certainly not the only one considering getting one after this post

and that she has seen it in the past

Damn, that's just sad

I'm reminded of a clip that I've seen that originates on Tik Tok about a guy who says something similar to what you're saying here, including a clip where the guy went and shouted at a neo-nazi to basically say "you're not welcome here, fuck off".

I found it interesting because he explained that this isn't usually something he would do because he's very much a voice against toxic masculinity and this means that generally he doesn't want or need to take the role of the angry, scary man. In this instance though, of the many members of his community who were uncomfortable with a neo-Nazi spewing hate, this guy was best situated to challenge this. I found it especially interesting because there's a particular kind of aggressiveness to it — like, obviously going up to someone and shouting at them is aggressive, but it was clear that this guy wasn't going for a fight

I respect your approach. I bet you're the kind of parent who apologises to their kids when you make mistakes

I always find it tricky to understand how tools all relate to each other in an ecosystem and this is a great example of why: the fact that Ansible can do this task, but Teraform would be better suggests that they are tools that have different purposes, but some overlap. What would you say is Ansible's strong suit?

That sounds beautiful. You really captured the moment

I understand why you feel uncomfortable with the word "feminist". I personally don't believe that feminism is inherently anti-male, but I also can't ignore the people whose behaviour doesn't fit inside my definition of that term; to do otherwise would be doing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. For me, identifying as a feminist means having to contend with that — that is to say that if I want feminism to account for the ways that men are fucked over by the patriarchy, then it's important that I challenge hateful rhetoric in supposedly progressive spaces.

Thanks for this recommendation. Diverse perspectives are important in underscoring that the Israeli people are not a monolith, and that they are distinct from the state of Israel.

I often see people online speaking about Israelis as though all of them are in favour of the ongoing genocide, when this is simply not the case. That's not to say that Netanyahu's control of the media hasn't led to a depressingly high proportion of Israelis to see themselves as righteous victims — years of state propaganda has unfortunately had an impact. However, there are journalists and activists (Jewish or otherwise) who are working to challenge this rhetoric.

I like the way one of my university textbooks frames the particle wave duality thing: "A single pure wave has a perfectly defined wavelength, and thus an exact energy, but has no position. [...] [Whereas a classical particle] would have a perfectly defined position but no definable wavelength and thus an undefined energy" ^([1]^[2])

I am currently in my bed. I have a lot to do today, but I'm not sure how much I will get done because I don't know how much energy have. Thus I conclude you are right and that I am clearly a particle.

^([1]: Principles and Problems in Physical Chemistry for Biochemists, Price, Dwek, Radcliffe & Wormald, p282)

^([2]: I'm practicing being more diligent with citations, in hope that good habits will make it easier when referencing is actually important)

A big part of quantum mechanics is the fact that matter can show wave-like behaviour, which sort of breaks a bunch of "rules" that we have from classical physics. This only is relevant if we're looking at stuff at a teensy tiny scale.

Someone else has already mentioned that electrons are a fair bit smaller than protons and neutrons (around 1840 times smaller) and this means they tend to have a smaller momentum than protons or neutrons, which means they have a larger wavelength, which was easier to measure experimentally. That's likely why electrons were a part of this theory, because they're small enough that they're sort of a perfect way to study the idea of things that are both particle and wave, but also neither. In 1940, quantum mechanics and particle physics were super rapidly moving fields, where our knowledge hadn't congealed much yet. What was clear was that electrons get up to some absolute nonsense behaviour that broke our understanding of how the world worked.

I like the results of some of the worked examples here: https://www.chemteam.info/Electrons/deBroglie-Equation.html , especially the one where they work out what the wavelength of a baseball would be (because that too, could theoretically act like a wave, it would just have an impossibly small wavelength)

TL;DR: electrons are smaller than protons/neutrons Smaller = larger wavelength Larger wavelength = easier to make experiments to see wave-like behaviour from the particle Therefore electrons were useful in figuring out how the heck a particle can have a wavelength and act like a wave

A++ for effort (at you, for this candid clarification)