ornery_chemist

Oh, I'm sure this'll end well.

/s

Nah, reach is a huge advantage. I'm not sure how rapier fencing differs from regulation sabre/epée/foil, but here's my 2 cents from that perspective:

Smaller people are not, as a rule, substantially quicker than larger. If you see any difference in your experience, it's likely a selection bias (shorter people have to be quicker to compete at the same level). The shorter person must enter the strike range of the taller person before the taller person comes within theirs and must be significantly quicker or more skilled to overcome that dead space. If the taller person can maintain a proper distance, gg. Taller people can also lunge farther, giving a wider active range.

Targeting is a smaller issue than you make it out to be; footwork and maintaining balance, which reposition the core, are at least as important as leaning to dodge, and advantage the taller person (longer legs = more movement range). If the taller person is coming from above as you say, they can just continue their slash (sabre) downward toward that less mobile core, or squat a bit deeper if the arc won't reach. If instead you were referring to a poke, they're either already targeting the torso anyway (foil) or whatever body part is most easily reachable (epée; still often torso, but cheeky wrist/arm strikes can be something of an equalizer here), and anyway they are already striking at a range that the shorter person cannot, making a successful counterattack more difficult.

Besides reach, a height difference is brutal when it comes to sabre fencing; the shorter person is restricted to targeting arms and torso (can't reach the head easily), so the taller person can anticipate strikes from fewer angles. The taller person can come from any direction and has gravity on their side for own overhead strikes. Those suck to defend against.

Good article, reactive web design notwithstanding (stop. breaking. my. scrolling). I'm not surprised that obtaining the chemicals was that easy, even accounting for the mislabeling and fake products. A lot of these chemicals are pretty simple and have pretty general use cases in the fine chemicals space. Hell, I had occasion to use (2-bromoethyl)benzene, aniline, and propionyl chlorde in school for making random precursors and ligands, albeit separately. I wonder if they are at all harder to procure nowadays because of the fentanyl epidemic.

Edit: checked some of my old work, didn't actually use (2-bromoethyl)benzene but did make a related compound as an intermediate for ligand synthesis using a very satisfying Appel reaction.

TIL that influenza virions can be stick-shaped.

I went up to the Lake Champlain area where there was some high altitude cloud cover. Fortunately, it didn't affect the viewing basically at all. A cool side effect of the clouds/related atmospheric conditions though was that the sun had a 22° halo. I wish that 1) I'd had a camera that could capture it and that 2) I'd had the presence of mind to pay attention to what happened to it in the moments before and after totality.

Mr. fancypants with a garage over there. Meanwhile, ain't no public chargers for miles around here.

I have this problem with organic chemistry more broadly. On the one hand, I understand that rattling off the IUPAC name of a compound is much less concise and harder to get right than just saying the brand name or chemical name (which, for pharma, is often just as bullshit of a name as the brand name). On the other, you come across names like the Eschenmoser-Claisen rearrangement vs the Johnson-Claisen rearrangement, or the Suzuki vs Stille vs Negishi vs Kumada vs Hiyama/Denmark vs Sonogashira* cross couplings. Each set consists of fundamentally the same reaction with slight variations in the specific reagents. Just saying e.g. "organozinc" instead of "Negishi" would be so much more descriptive. The authors' names often aren't even that helpful in an attributive sense. For instance, some of the cross couplings were actually first reported by someone else in that list (though IIRC everyone got at least one), and most of the chemists published work on at least one of the other reactions at some point.

* Okay fine Sonogashiras are a little different what with the copper co-catalyst, but still, same mech at Pd.

Man I just built a new rig last November and went with nvidia specifically to run some niche scientific computing software that only targets CUDA. It took a bit of effort to get it to play nice, but it at least runs pretty well. Unfortunately, now I'm trying to update to KDE6 and play games and boy howdy are there graphics glitches. I really wish HPC academics would ditch CUDA for GPU acceleration, and maybe ifort + mkl while they're at it.

The point about stress is interesting. I've been playing with pronouncing the phrase, and almost everything tends toward [ɐ] when I speak the syllables one at a time, even the ones I marked with and pronounce as a schwa in normal speech. The notable exceptions are the final schwas in "obstruction" and "onions", which tend toward [ɪ], and the -nel of "tunnel", which is something like [nɫ] (vocalic ɫ) ~ [nəɫ].

It helps when most of the vowels are the same and most other letters match their English counterparts lol.

In case you get the urge to learn sooner:

Here are some quick refs for consonants and vowels in English (RP = received pronunciation (a standardized form of English from the UK), GA = General American). Wikipedia pages for specific English dialects (e.g., Australian English) also contain a bunch of word/IPA pairs. Here are audio charts for vowels and consonants.

yup

Thank you for reminding me of this channel, I'd forgotten about it.

Interesting about the merging. Schwa has always been weird for me because in my dialect it can be many sounds. I grew up saying "obstruction" as [ʌbstɹʌkʃɪn] like those around me. Then I hit grade school and was told by a straight-faced teacher that both the first and last syllables in this and similar words were schwas while pronouncing them differently :)