Okay.
> You do as your peers do, you live online. Where insanity is your mainstream cultural input.
Reductionist, but I follow. What is insanity, and who defines it? Prior to the modern day, homosexuality was insanity or illness.
> Where mental illness, a very serious issue, is seemingly rewarded for oppression points.
Outside of some very extreme circles, nobody is actually doing this seriously. Where are you even seeing this?
> Where you might question your gender, where before this very idea didn't even occur to you.
No, they just kept quiet about it. That’s the difference, and it seems many are not ready to face the complex nature of psyche.
> Where you're confused between body types, from anorexic to celebrating obesity.
Most people are reasonable enough to understand celebrating obesity and “health at every size” is a fringe, unscientific and extremist idea.
> The normalization of the hating of the other sex.
Once again, extreme communities. Not sure if you refer to incels, would love some clarification.
> Or the other political half. Or an entire race. Or an entire class. Or anybody that doesn't agree with you.
Hate and extremism was invented by the internet?
> The normalization of doxxing, snitching, gossiping and cancel culture as "conversation" tools. The sheer volume of it. The pointless status games.
I see nothing new here. It’s more accesible, yes, but public shame and gossip (!!!) has happened for millennia.
People can organize better and agendas can be pushed easily via the internet. But these voices are fringe and minority. Outside, in the real world — most people are reasonable and understanding.
Oh, and monocultures aren’t great.
It's not reasonably possible to rid ourselves of the internet, and in fact I think it's a net Good. The issue going forward is to consider and teach responsible internet use for not just young people, but everyone. Most of the shitty, intentionally hurtful things I see on the internet don't come from young folks, but from adults trying to inflict harm. People like that have always existed, and are the real problem in these cases.
And in any case, it was not a sudden "canceling" or anything approaching that. Seuss's estate, managed by his family, made the decision after much deliberation to cease the publication of only six books due to the content. You could even see it as an anti-cancellation - Seuss's family wants to avoid him being associated with the obviously racist content of some of his work.
This fine example is ok too: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Protocols-of-the-Learned-Elders-of-...
But Mulberry street is the problem.
1. The fact that the function is easy to compute because there is an analytical solution to the ODE when the atom is simple enough tells precious little about what the picture actually represents.
2. The fact that the function you talk about has 6 parameters and this is a 3D visualization (3 degrees of freedom) is confusing.
3. The chemistry lesson about orbitals is also an interesting fact but still not properly correlated to the interactive depiction. Notoriously missing: where are m,n,l actually depicted in the story? Am I looking at one specific choice for those? What are the menu entries?
I think there is something that would truly help: if one would take a volume integral over a infinitesimal cube of the 3D interactive representation, what physical units would the result be in?
3. This hydrogen atom has a nucleus and one electron. Think of n as the energy level of that electron - electrons have discrete energy levels, so as n increases the electron occupies the next discrete energy available to it.
l is another quantized value which corresponds to what we call the orbital angular momentum of the electron, which partially determines the shape of the orbital. This is a big part of the visualization you see - as you change the value of l, we see different shapes, and if you increase the number of particles in the visualization, you get changes in those shapes. These different shells have names - s, p, d, etc - that correspond to the integer value of l - 0, 1, 2, etc.
Importantly, what's being graphed in the visualization is a solution to the specified wave function. It's a 3D probability map, effectively. Where there is a higher chance of the electron being located, the particles are more concentrated, whereas lower chance regions have lower populations of particles.
m is called the magnetic quantum number and can have integer values from -l to +l, and further specifies the particular state of the electron in its "shell" - s, p, d, etc again. If the wave function has n=2 and l=2, then it's in the d shell, and can have values of m from -2 to +2. The actual value of m determines the final "shape" of the orbital, again depicted as a probability map - every dot you see plotted can be a location of the electron, so plotting a lot of them based on the probability distribution gives you a visualization of the regions available to that electron.
So the menu entries are just values of n,l,m that aren't separated by commas.
I hope that clarifies some things!
I'm looking for a genuine honest answer here, this really isn't rhetorical. Every second thread regarding Apple seems to have top comments complaining about the quality of what Apple has become. The first I recall was the butterfly keyboard fiasco, then some others, then El Capitan and Big Sur bugs, then this.
Again, I really want to understand this: why the continued loyalty?
I think the reason I'm still here is trust in the overall product, along with some heavily rose tinted glasses. I still use other products sometimes and almost always only find problems that would prevent me from switching. So perhaps it's also some monopolistic behavior impacting my personal behavior.