• b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    reminder that we don’t abstain from chemical weapons on ethical grounds (aside from messaging to voters), we don’t use them because high explosives work better. do not underestimate mad physics

      • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        chemistry is just applied physics anyway

        (plus there’s a lot of physics in guiding the explosives from a place they are to a place they weren’t)

        • Stilicho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Physicists will say that, but does that mean that they’ll just be able to magically derive advanced ochem?

          It’s like they have already memorized the exact state of the entire universe and just figure it out from there.

          • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            i was referencing this xkcd, lol

            even then though, sure, high explosives are chemistry, but physics makes the difference between having high explosives at home vs having them where your enemy is

            • Stilicho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol I get ya. You just gave me some flashbacks on working together on something photochemistry related with people from the physics faculty at my uni. They never took “it won’t work like that” for an answer lol. Good times though.

    • Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Every “mad scientist” in popular media has been an inventive engineer. They never do any hypothesis testing, no p-values, no publications in the Journal of Doomsday Weaponry, no grant applications…