Yes. Idaho does not exist. Please don't come here and enjoy our beautiful outdoors. It's a hellhole.
CherenkovBlue
joined 2 years ago
Without actually seeing the numbers and just looking at the graph, it seems like there are several historical instances of a similar year-over-year spike of similar magnitude - around 1860, 1990 and a few more (I am doing that from memory, dates not exact).
I'd like to point out that there are other spikes in the temperature historically. So while the temperature is rising year over year, the large increase here may be an anomaly.
Let's keep working on reducing our CO2 emissions...
Needs more jpeg!
Can I just please ask that we change the tone of how these kinds of articles are discussed in Lemmy vs Reddit? I live in ID, and we basically are run as a state by a small group of GOP extremists because they have managed to manipulate the primary system and related machinery to push them to win. There are a LOT of people in this state who are normal folks and not extremists.
It was disheartening on Reddit when there was this broad brush of "fuck em, they are all subhuman idiots" when these stories come up. We need help to overthrow this minority extremist rule, not condemnation and abandonment. There ARE efforts pushing back, like Reclaim Idaho and this lawsuit and the state Democratic party energizing.
So, please. Remember the human, and work with us to help turn Idaho purple again, and help the people impacted by the stupid Legislature - women, children, LGBTQ, etc.
Ooh how have you blocked them? Is there a specific set of addresses?
Oh bummer :(
Well, don't take my advice as gospel truth. But in my experience when we are hiring post-docs (and doing my own post doc), we are looking for people who can execute a technical project quickly. So they have to have the technical skills to do something but don't have to have the knowledge of the particular material system, which can be filled in with lit research and working with an advisor/supervisor. In my group, I would take a person who knows MD and not radiation damage physics versus someone who does know radiation damage physics but works in experimental characterization, for example. I'm not sure how that translates for chemistry - you may want to ask a few people for the specifics in the field.
My PhD was quite niche, so I am reluctant to be too specific about it in a public forum, however, I used phase field modelling to study second phase precipitation and growth in metals. Things like the effect of stress on chemical potential and thus growth of particles, nucleation, etc. Phase field is a mesoscale technique that you likely aren't familiar with if you work in the chemistry arena, but it is cool! Other areas of modeling that my group works with includes DFT, MDC, KMC flavors, cluster dynamics, phase field fracture, machine learning and engineering scale finite element modeling.
Working in academia, national labs and industry all have their own sets of pros and cons. You have to pick the set that personally works best for you (best pros and most manageable cons). I will say at a national lab, if you want a leadership or management role in R&D, you will need a PhD, and at absolutely bare minimum a master's to get your foot in the door. Plenty of bachelors and masters work to do as well but much less likely to have an R&D lead role. Citizenship is also a question. If you are American interested in a US national lab, great! If you are actually not a citizen any more that is more challenging, and depending on the country of citizenship, possibly impossible.
I enjoy working at the labs. There are a ton of brilliant people and the labs are an intersection of many slices including academia and industry. I enjoy that nexus environment. Others do not and prefer to be in a pure research space. Some labs are more applied and some are more basic science, so there is variety. Of course I have to deal with changing political winds affecting our work path sometimes, and reporting such that Congress won't get a bee in their bonnet. But I don't have to write endless proposals and I don't have to rush teaching. I have plenty of mentoring opportunities available if I so desire. I get a ton of opportunities and also a lot of risk, but as I said, I have great people around me who support me in my work. I fit in to our lab mission and I find great satisfaction in that.
Well, fire away here at least, I don't necessarily want to make a post about it but happy to chat!
I got my B.S. from a state engineering school in the USA and then went to a "Public Ivy" for my PhD. I started in materials after I realized it was actually a discipline. While in undergrad I worked in a metallurgy lab and had the great chance to do several internships at national labs, still working on metals. In grad school, I started in experimental work on semiconductors but switched to modeling and simulation of nuclear fuel cladding degradation, again, after I realized it was a discipline. I had a summer internship at another national lab during grad school and I became the first PhD in my family. I did two years of postdoc on novel superalloys that was joint lab/university. I then took a position at national lab #4, where I remain today. I have worked there for over five years. In that time I worked on modeling multiple fuel systems and helped stand up an initiative for nuclear materials, which was successfully combined with other small programs into a new national program, of which I am a senior leadership member. In that role I set technical directions for my area and support the entire program direction, lead technical work and supervise staff and postdocs, and serve as the materials contact at my lab for other programs and high-level visitors (developing collaborations with industry, governments, etc).
This is real, unfortunately
Oh, that would be fun. I would have to be careful to maintain my anonymity or do it under an alt account though, since the field is fairly small.
Specifically I work in nuclear reactor materials R&D. I have worked on fuel, cladding, and structural materials for a variety of reactor concepts (existing LWR fleet and advanced reactors). I go from basic science on irradiation damage up to manufacturing processes and next-gen material development and deployment.
Sound interesting?
O F is the freezing temperature of a saturated brine solution, while 100 F was the body temperature of a human. Yes, body temperature has been revised a bit, but the two points were chosen as stable points that anyone could access that would generally be unchanged by pressure changes, etc. Human homeostasis is quite good at keeping a temperature in a narrow range. Also, boiling is massively affected by air pressure. At 5000' elevation, boiling is approximately 202 F and continues to get lower as altitude increases. Lots of people live at higher altitudes. (Hi! I am one of them !)
Edit: I was a little off on the temperature selected for body temp, but still pretty close: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit