Many adults are put off when youngsters pose scientific questions. Children ask why the sun is yellow, or what a dream is, or how deep you can dig a hole, or when is the world’s birthday, or why we have toes.
Too many teachers and parents answer with irritation or ridicule, or quickly move on to something else. Why adults should pretend to omniscience before a five-year-old, I can’t for the life of me understand. What’s wrong with admitting that you don’t know? Children soon recognize that somehow this kind of question annoys many adults. A few more experiences like this, and another child has been lost to science.
There are many better responses. If we have an idea of the answer, we could try to explain. If we don’t, we could go to the encyclopedia or the library. Or we might say to the child: “I don’t know the answer. Maybe no one knows. Maybe when you grow up, you’ll be the first to find out.
|—||Carl Sagan (via perfect)|
This great photo shows transonic airflow around the Blue Angels F-18 with superb clarity
are they still grounded? so depressing.
Update: Notice that happiness and love seem to be the strongest/most powerful ones.
someone studying atoms is really just a bunch of atoms trying to understand themselves
what have you done
This is a real dinosaur foot.
It still amazes me that these things were REAL and that we’re finding things like this. Skeletons are one thing but this foot is freaking wild.
tHIS IS REALLY COOL OK
It died giving the finger.
Yo it’s not actually a dinosaur foot… click
This isn’t new, and yet many people still don’t know about it, which sucks ‘cause I think it’s super cool. Like, imagine driving a car that looks like a hole in space because it doesn’t reflect light back to people’s eyes…
Google’s Machine Learning Algorithms Outpacing Engineers’ Ability to Understand How they Work
“Google no longer understands how its “deep learning” decision-making computer systems have made themselves so good at recognizing things in photos.
What stunned [Google Software Engineer] Quoc V. Le is that the software has learned to pick out features in things like paper shredders that people can’t easily spot – you’ve seen one shredder, you’ve seen them all, practically. But not so for Google’s monster.
Many of Quoc’s pals had trouble identifying paper shredders when he showed them pictures of the machines, he said. The computer system has a greater success rate, and he isn’t quite sure how he could write a program to do this.
Google researchers can no longer explain exactly how the system has learned to spot certain objects, because the programming appears to think independently from its creators, and its complex cognitive processes are inscrutable. "