Does each "buzz" give a different effect? How does the brain know which part to let the serotonin into to get a specific high? Like is there the same "buzz" between lets say alcohol, coke, heroin, gambling, cigarettes, weed or painkillers? How does your brain know how to let loose the "high" part? How does a alcoholic different from a alcoholic or gambling addict? Is there like a thin line that runs through all addictions? And this is why so many fall under the very vague umbrella of just addicts?? Can explain more if need be.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/43972162

I'm guessing;

• space flight so cheap that a normal person could buy and use a space vehicle for less than the cost of a house
• space freight

If needed I will try to explain further.

I am trying to mathematical model a passive Magnetorheological damper. Broadly speaking, this would work by having a magnet sit on the damper shaft near the damper body. As the shaft moves, it would induce an eddy current in the damper body, creating a magnetic field. Not only would this magnetic field oppose the magnet's motion, but it would increase the viscosity of the magnetorheological fluid inside the damper body. On paper, this would rapidly increase the damping forces with increasing shaft speeds, allowing for more controlled shaft speed.

Fortunately, I found a paper discussing a damper similar to my ideas. Unfortunately, I don't really understand the math, and I need the damping force equation in terms of velocity to validate the application I have in mind. Linked is the paper I am referring to.

For my purposes, I would also want to model separate traditional high and low speed compression and rebound circuits moving through traditional mechanical damping circuits, along with some other damping features. However, that's a problem for future FedX, right now I really just care about the broad differences in damping characteristics as a function of shaft velocity.

If it is a power thing how come pedophiles don't get off on watch people with power humiliating people lesser than them? How does a rapist keep walking with a hardon? At one point the brain has got to tell the body this is really fucked up but I am asking on a scientific level. I got alot of questions. Thank you in advance for taking this serious. I can expound on my original questions if you like.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/43208909

picnic rule

I have heard one definition of "a sudden change that makes something once niche and seldom-seen become ubiquitous", such as the sudden reduction in price of consumer computing in the 1990s

Posting here, as this has more to do with the human voice itself than electronics.

I am planning to build a simple human voice synth, but I couldn't find much on the internet. The overall plan is to generate a signal, pass it through about 10-ish bandpass filters and adjust each filter's gain to create speech.

For my source signal, I found this, which seems to be the sound generated by the larynx before passing through the throat and mouth. From what I read online, a relaxation oscillator or a sawtooth wave seems to be a close approximation of it.

One of the things I am struggling to find is the frequency components corresponding to certain phonetics. Though I am pretty sure it is either because I can't find the right keywords or because SEO ruined the internet.

US2121142A is the patent for Voder, the first human voice synthesizer by bell labs. It has a similar structure to what I've been modeling in my head. Should I just use the frequency values here for my bandpass filters or should I use something else?

We know that social isolation, involuntary confinement, and poverty tend to be extremely detrimental to health.

However, many humans have willingly isolated themselves and taken vows of poverty for religious and spiritual reasons for thousands of years.

Do we know if these people often face the same consequences? Are they affected differently from people who don’t have a choice?

And many other things. I am pretty sure we are in the infancy of voice commands but what about from a single device? Would it be easy for the average person to set up with like youtube videos and such?

I was inspired by today's XKCD text: "Scientists occasionally invent alternative periodic table layouts, which is usually a sign that they don't have enough enrichment in their enclosures." (emphasis mine)

If we spend nearly all of our time alone, what kinds of "enrichment" do we need to keep ourselves from going crazy?

I assume ethical research here would be difficult to find, but it seems like there could be observational studies of prisoners, scientists at isolated outposts, etc. I wonder how many work-from-home people are keeping themselves in conditions that would be considered unethical if those conditions were forced on them.

(I'm not doing as badly as this post would imply -- it's just a slow Friday here :) )

EDIT: People seem to be really fixating on the prison thing. It was an example of a place where people can feel isolation and still be monitored. I am aware that my home is not a prison.

I work from home. I like working from home. Sometimes I get lonely or bored, and I wondered what science said I should do to ensure I'm having the best experience possible.

@LurkingLuddite@piefed.social nailed the intent of my question. It was meant to ask about research-backed positive things that people should ensure they are doing.

As I understand it, in special relativity, when two bodies are moving away from one another, there is no absolute sense in which one is moving away from the other (e.g. when you jump in the air it is equally true to say that the Earth is moving away from you as it is to say that you are moving away from the Earth; or when a spaceship is going deep into space it's just as true to say that the Earth is moving away from the spaceship as it is to say the spaceship is moving away from Earth).

This has interesting implications when it comes to the more funky aspects of special relativity (i.e. time dilation, length contraction). Because this means that if Bob is moving close to light speed relative to Jane, Bob will perceive Jane as experiencing length contraction and time dilation, but Jane will not experience these things. From her point of view, it is Bob that is experiencing length contraction and time dilation. So both will always experience the other as experiencing these things, because from their point of view it is always the other person moving at near light speeds. So special relativity is symmetrical this way.

As I understand it though, this symmetry breaks when it comes to acceleration. This is how you can have a scenario where e.g. Bob ages a lot compared to Jane (because he accelerated or decelerated more).

So my question is: why does this symmetry in special relativity break when it comes to acceleration?

I'm asking this because there is a scifi book I'm reading, and in the book there's a scene where someone is communicating with a person in a spacecraft moving at lightspeed. I know their ability to communicate would probably not be possible, but let's just put that aside for a second. Hypothetically, if you could communicate with someone moving lightspeed, would the time dilation make it so that they would appear to be moving and speaking very slowly relative to you?

What kind of lab equipment and tools would be needed and is there any open science oriented resource on the process?