But what is the effect on lifetime of not having any CNO present? If a present-day massive star would have a lifetime of 10 million years, how long would it live if it was a population III star with no CNO?
Carbon is formed in small amounts by normal stellar fusion, and since it is a catalytic process the carbon is conserved. So even an early star would probably have some fusion happening via the CNO cycle.
I'm not sure. I think a lack of metals makes a star less stable and burn out more quickly, but I could be wrong on that. There's some episodes of Astronomy Cast and Ask a Spaceman that I think would answer your question about pop3 stars more reliably than I could.
There is a range of wavelengths of light that humans perceive as green. The same is true for every color that is part of the rainbow. In contrast, the "pure purples" do not appear in the rainbow, and there is no single wavelength of light that humans perceive as purple (it requires red light plus blue light).
The perception of color is a pretty wild area of science. Colors seem to be culturally dependent. In that, people literally cannot see the difference between blue and green if their language does not have words to distinguish them. Even when big rewards are given for the 'correct' answer. Colors also follow certain patterns, with colors like blue being the last to be named in a culture.
Color is still there, just like there are frequencies between A4 440 Hz and A#4 466.16 Hz. Most of the people can't name "color" of pure sound. Yet they feel difference.
Its the other way around. A classic study from the 1960s found that color words and the correlated perception were pretty similar among a large number of languages. That suggest something physiological about color perception.
What is curious is how color words evolve. Most languages have between two and eight basic color words (and color concepts). Those with two colors is almost always the same two colors- light and dark. The third color is usually red-brown. And fourth usually blue-green.
>In that, people literally cannot see the difference between blue and green if their language does not have words to distinguish them.
People literally can see the difference between blue and green even if their language doesn't differentiate between the two, I don't know if you're misremembering a claim and a negation sneaked in so please don't take this post too harshly if that's the case, but the idea that say Japanese people can't tell the difference between blue and green is patently false and should be addressed, in fact the video you linked almost does so at 2:34 -
>Some researchers took this and other ancient writings to wrongly speculate that earlier societies were colour blind.
That Homer described the ocean as wine in colour is not an issue of perception but one of language in trying to describe a colour that is not differentiated from other colours, the same is true for other 'perception' issues in the ancient world like green coloured honey. To be clear visual acuity tests have been done on modern populations and tribes which don't differentiate between such colours or overall define less colour categories and it should be no surprise to learn that they can see the difference between those colours just fine.
The whole idea that it's a difference in perception is fraught with issues, like what happens when a language naturally develops words for new categories of colours or new colours? Does a generation undergo the collective experience of literally being able to see/differentiate a new colour? If so why isn't this written about more, is it something that only happens in kids? What would be the reason for this sudden shift in perspective, because it certainly isn't a physiological change that occurs.
What happens when an adult learns a second language which differentiates between more colours? The classic romanticised view here is that learning a new language literally let's you see the world in a different perspective, but then why is it that enhanced perspective rarely more than a curiosity (language x has two words for this colour)? The Russian language has separate words for a dark blue (siniy) and a light blue (goluboy) but English doesn't differentiate between them, do the Russians see an extra colour? What does the science say? Well the science is somewhat interesting here, Russians are able to differentiate between dark blues and lighter blues ever so slightly faster (124ms), but this is worlds apart from the claim that some languages are literally capable of seeing more colours.
In general this line of thinking is known as linguistic relativity, or the view that language shapes perception and cognition, and is something that has generally been discredited among linguists as being discriminatory and harmful as well as being based on faulty reasoning or studies and occasionally fraudulent papers. For example, and I really don't mean to attribute any malice to your post, but if we're considering Homer as being unable to differentiate between an ocean blue and a dark red wine, what do we make of cultures and languages that don't differentiate between smoking, drinking, or eating? Do they not know the difference between those actions? What about the Pirahã people who only have two words (differentiated by tone) for 'small quantity' and 'large quantity' and no other words for numerals? This line of thinking is fairly harmless when applied to the way we perceive colours but can be actively harmful to people who perceive the world the exact same way we do but don't have as expressive language for these particular topics.
For anybody interested in more linguistic oddities and/or the damage linguistic relativism can do I recommend the book 'The Language Hoax' by John McWhorter, there's also an hour long talk on it available on Youtube [0]. The book deals with the more recent studies on how language affects the ways we think in a grounded way and shows how minor some of the best examples given can be like in the case of dark and light blue in Russian. The book is also in response to the general public's view and romanticism of linguistic relativity and in particular in response to a book by another linguist Guy Deutscher titled 'Through the Language Glass', where Guy feeds into the perception that language helps shape the way we think, and it is a good book but it still doesn't get close to saying that other languages see more colours.
There is no need to travel to jungles. Subtle differences are all around us.
* plants - trees, grasses, flowers, native and garden species, once I knew maybe 400 names, now come to disuse and quickly slip away
* food - ingredients and prepared
* fonts - Comic Sans, Times New Roman, Helvetica and many more
* car models - a lot of people know them by heart
It would be a strange claim we do not perceive difference without a name. We do but we do not care. And when we care we want to communicate and names become handy.
There's an important distinction between anatomically modern humans and behaviorally modern humans. Behaviorally modern humans were the ones that were able to migrate all over the world.
> “Recursively self-improving systems, because of contingent bottlenecks, diminishing returns, and counter-reactions […], cannot achieve exponential progress in practice. Empirically, they tend to display linear or sigmoidal improvement.”
Moore's Law. Use computers to make better computers. Exponential growth over more than 7 orders of magnitude and, although the growth rate is slowing, it hasn't run out of steam yet.
If AI eventually exhibits anywhere near that level of recursive self-improvement, godlike superintelligences lie in our future.
Still is to some extent, and a lot of people just cannot pull them off, so stigma or no they do look worse just like if they were wearing crappier clothes (I'm this way, a bit—hard to find glasses that look at least OK on me rather than awful).
Perhaps better to say that there's no stigma to finding out that someone wears contacts or has had LASIK surgery. Those match the intuition of ADHD as something that's a personal/"invisible" problem, with a personal/"invisible" treatment.
Ah, yes, that's true. The social benefit to having 20/20 vision naturally instead of through surgery or wearing contacts is very low, even if people know about the contacts or surgery.
So was a number of other perceived biological outliers, including left handedness and melanin content. Although not perfect, as society progresses, these outliers are accepted more over time.
That's a very interesting idea, though it wouldn't significantly affect people with vast resources such as botnet owners, corporations, and governments. It would certainly slow down the garden-variety troll, however the determined troll would just keep a core burning to create a steady stream of sock puppet accounts.
While Larry and Sergei were running Google, the company often (though not necessarily always) chose doing what was right over a more profitable wrong. A specific example was when they discovered the Chinese government was behind a major security breach targeting dissidents, they refused to continue to comply with Chinese censorship requirements.
However, as the founders lost interest in the day-to-day operation of the company, any pretense of being more than just another soulless profit machine was discarded.
