This is why it is good lab procedure to always "run a blank." A blank is simply a sample that is constructed exactly like a real sample but without the thing you are studying. This way you quickly learn about contamination from tools/gloves/environment etc.
Here's a very naïve example to help illustrate how you can do a "blank" (a control).
Say you're testing a sample of water in a test tube. Repeat all steps in exactly the same way, but use distilled water. You can even do all the steps and use no water! (Including having an empty container and pouring nothing from the empty container into the test tube).
By doing things like this you create samples that allow you to look for contamination. How do you know that the thing you're testing has microplastics? (Or whatever) because it has more than the blanks/controls. That's it. Congrats, you've isolated a variable in your experiment.
Btw, this is pretty common practice. In fact! Here's a video of someone doing exactly that "nothing" control looking for microplastics. Those steps are done at 10:20.
> Repeat all steps in exactly the same way, but use distilled water. You can even do all the steps and use no water!
This is where I get lost. Maybe I don't understand what a blank is.
If you have access to distilled water that you have excellent reason to believe is free from what you're detecting, then great. But my point is we don't have access to animal flesh guaranteed to be free of microplastics, do we? Because they're everywhere in the environment.
And if you use no water at all, it seems like you're missing the entire vector of contamination from acquiring and transporting the water. E.g. if the water container is producing contamination, then your blank of no water isn't revealing the source of contamination! The blank isn't helping at all.
I don't have any issue with the concept of a blank sample when they're feasible. My issue is, I don't see how you can produce a blank sample of animal tissue without microplastics specifically because microplastics are everywhere in nature, and I don't see how a slide with zero animal tissue at all is a useful blank.
> If you have access to distilled water that you have excellent reason to believe is free from what you're detecting
Don't make assumptions.
> we don't have access to animal flesh guaranteed to be free of microplastics, do we?
Don't make assumptions.
These two assumptions could potentially be at odds.
> And if you use no water at all, it seems like you're missing the entire vector of contamination from acquiring and transporting the water.
Don't use water? Use another liquid that doesn't interact the same way. I gave examples, they are clearly non-exhaustive.
I don't have an answer for you for the exact process but I'm also not a scientist working on these experiments. But the people who are doing the experiments are. They know the answers to these questions. A lot of it is going to be detailed in the papers but some won't be because it's more common knowledge among the niche, but you'd likely learn it if you pursued a PhD in the domain
Just so you know, the tone of your comment is extremely off-putting.
I don't have the slightest idea why you're rudely telling me "don't make assumptions", especially if you don't have additional information to add. And the suggestion to "pursue a PhD in the domain" if I want answers is exceedingly obnoxious.
If you don't have helpful answers, you don't need to leave a comment. You don't need to say that you don't have answers but add a bunch of rude sentences while you do it. Better to just not reply at all.
> Just so you know, the tone of your comment is extremely off-putting.
Didn't mean too, but if we're speaking about tone then it's worth noting you're being overly defensive. When you were trying to seek clarification you're approaching it in a combative way. As if from the stance that you're right and I'm wrong. I'll admit my patience quickly thins when talking on the internet as I just don't want to argue.
Also, you're well known here (why I'm responding now) and I think that also makes it important that you help set the culture here. To act in good faith like the guidelines illustrate. I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith (there's a lot of middle ground) but you should take just a few more seconds to consider an alternative interpretation (e.g. if your instinct was to interpret my ask for stronger good faith as an accusation of bad faith then you interpreted as the weakest version rather then the strongest)
I have a point here. It is that nuance and small details matter.
> I don't have the slightest idea why you're rudely telling me "don't make assumptions"
I'm sure I could have said it better, by my tone was neutral. I'm not a LLM, and I'm not going to preference everything with "brilliant" or "great question", I'm just going to respond. *I'm not calling you dumb*, I'm just pointing out your error.
The problem with your understanding is that you are making erroneous assumptions. This needs to be pointed out to get you unstuck.
In science it's all about assumptions. People frequently throw around the term "from first principles" but you don't really hear that from scientists. First principles are hard to find. You derive them. Your first principles are your axioms. Your assumptions. They always exist, explicitly or implicitly. The problem is you probably didn't recognize you were making assumptions. That's fine though, because it's common. It's hard to avoid.
> If you don't have helpful answers
You're right. But the thing is I was being helpful. Maybe not in the way you wanted, maybe not optionally, but I'm human.
> You don't need to ... add a bunch of rude sentences while you do it.
I didn't.
Theres no name calling.
There's no attack.
There's not even an implication that you're dumb.
I did assume you don't have a PhD in chemistry or biology, but I'm pretty confident given your question (was I wrong?). I also said I don't have that qualification (but I do have lots of experimental science training) and that there were things I don't know either. So if you interpreted me as calling you dumb for not having that background then you need to recognize I would have been saying that about myself too! And that you didn't need this comment to infer that.
> Better to just not reply at all.
Maybe. But that could apply to your own comment. You wrote yours to try to resolve things, right? That's why I left this comment too. But it's up to you how you interpret it.
So if you're studying slices of e.g. brain to look for microplastic particles, what would be a material with similar properties, that you would then go through the same steps of preserving, preparing, slicing, mounting, etc.?
I'm genuinely curious. Are there standard widely used stand-in materials for animal flesh, for plant materials, etc.?
The point is that blank lets you measure that level of "background" contamination, which you then use to correct the measurements made on actual samples.
Suppose you measure around 100 plastic particles per unit in your blank and 1000 in a sample of A. This suggests that A enriches (sheds, etc) microplastic particles. On the other hand, if you found (say) 101 particles/unit in a sample of B, you'd conclude B doesn't do that.
But in your example you still don't know if it was your testing process that shed 100 plastic particles or if your distilling process shed 100 plastic particles, meaning you don't actually know if B was or was not the source of the plastic particles. Was it your testing process that introduced those 100 particles, was it the distilling process that introduced them, 50/50, or something else?
B would be inconclusive against what you'd hope to be some kind of background, as its not significantly more but one couldn't conclude the source didn't shed that 100 because you don't actually know if in the blank the 100 particles of contamination was definitely your testing process or the source material genuinely having 100 particles of contamination.
I do agree though, in the A case one could pretty easily conclude whatever generated that sample is adding way more particles than an attempt at a baseline/background.
> B would be inconclusive against what you'd hope to be some kind of background
Correct. And this is why scientists use null hypothesis testing. You disprove things in science, not prove them. I think that's why you're confused. In the first situation you disproved that it comes from the background
I interpreted that sentence as more casual language. Maybe I'm wrong to assume that. But I didn't write it either.
Either way, the difference didn't matter to answer your question. Them getting that part wrong doesn't make the other part wrong nor hard to understand.
So why even bother mentioning the distilled water? And if you're testing an aqueous process don't you pretty much need some fluid to put through the process?
So then maybe don't give the first if you know its a flawed example? Its not that hard to grasp.
> You don't need some fluid
Entirely depends on your testing procedure, and not something always true. Like in the video you posted he pretty much needs to have some kind of fluid through the process. Otherwise, he'd be missing out on contamination in the process of artificial mastication, running through the filtration process, etc. Sure, examine a dry and plain filter as well to see what the filters look like and ensure they're not just completely covered in particles as well, but you're then missing out testing quite a lot of the rest of the process.
> So then maybe don't give the first if you know its a flawed example?
It's not a flawed example. As you can understand from the other poster talking about baselines.
> Its not that hard to grasp.
I agree!
> Like in the video you posted he pretty much needs to have some kind of fluid through the process.
And it looks like you're understanding too!
But if he used a different process he could have used it dry. There's a lot of ways to skin a cat. Different ways create different constraints.
So I'm confused here, did you just want to argue or did you actually want to understand? Because at this point it seems like you understand. And frankly, I don't want to argue
Sure seems like you do with all your passive aggressive takes of asserting I'm confused or can't read or can't understand things and that I lack understanding the most basic scientific concepts like null hypothesis testing.
My question was simply:
> But how do you know your source of distilled water isn't also contaminated?
You could have just replied with "you don't, and it doesn't always matter depending on the questions being asked and the processes being used" but instead you've drawn it out to this many comments.
Instead you chose to say "you read the rest of my comment" instead of actually answering my question and then talk down to me over and over.
Some of the other comments seemed to be acting like running a blank is a fool proof way to just make sure you get a clean answer, and my point was to show there are still limits to "just run a blank". And that's shown by the sibling thread here with the other poster thinking if your blank has 100 particles and your test sample having 101 that means the test process obviously introduced the particles, which is a flawed understanding of the results of the test. The results are inconclusive, it did not prove the sample contained no particles to start.
I don't believe the point is to construct a blank without them. Rather, the point is to capture what is already there (contaminants) so you can calibrate during the real sample.
Both things can be true. A better O-ring with the same joint might have prevented the disaster. A better designed joint with the same O-ring might also. Feynman knew that a little theater would go a long way. The O-ring explanation, albeit a partial explanation, made for good theater.
Maybe not so much "oblivious to safety" as "oblivious to probable risk." We worry to much about low risk events (like airline flights) and don't worry enough about higher risk events (like trips-and-falls, driving a car, poor diet...)
I really enjoy how Julia handles images. The abstractions really streamline developing image processing algorithm that are independent of pixel representation. Like so much of Julia, the first time I saw it, my mind was warped. Julia is worth learning if just for all the clever design choices.
If the drive isn't encrypted, is it possible that controllers use some kind of encoding to balance out the number of bits, so that there's not a long run of 0s or 1s?
And yet all countries with socialized systems pay less per capita for healthcare than we do and pretty much all have better health outcomes. Further privatizing our system will only make it more dis-functional. Healthcare isn't a normal marketplace. * When you really need it, you can't shop around. * There is a knowledge asymmetry built in. * A civilized society can't just let poor children die of preventable causes.
This is just the lazy comment of someone who believes all the right-wing propaganda about government. In my experience, government employees take pride in doing a job worth doing and doing it well.
I don't care about dated looks. I do find MS Office's pressure to use OneDrive frustrating and annoying. Honestly, older UIs for office suite products just feel more direct and responsive than the clever ribbon bars. Excel used to be svelte (25 years ago or more...) Now it feels bloated and clumsy. LibreOffice Calc (same parentage as Collabora Office) feels more like Excel used to feel. Similar complaints about Word.
Hopefully, in coming years, we will see more practically designed EVs that are more affordable. A practical car doesn't need neck-snapping acceleration, every bell-and-whistle and room for a family of six with a dog. I'd like to believe that as batteries cost drop, the incentive to justify the extra cost will drop. Then we can get back to "just basic transportation" rather than a luxury product for the rich. While $31k isn't exactly cheap, the base new Leaf is heading the right direction.
At this point most EVs are exactly the way you describe and Tesla is an outlier.
Look at Hyundai/Kia’s lineup. The Niro, EV6, and EV9 are essentially the three major segments of American car preferences. They aren’t particularly fast or exotic.
They don’t really cost a whole lot more to buy/own than alternatives in the same segment especially on a monthly payment or buying one used, they just aren’t chosen at a high rate compared to gas powered alternatives.
Tesla just used the neck-snapping acceleration to market EVs by cool factor rather than by economics. And that was a smart idea to get people in showrooms.
Cheap crossovers and compact SUVs tend to be >8s. In practice even that makes them sound faster than they are, as they require an aggressive launch and consistent high RPMs to get there.
This has always been true of gas vehicles as well. They're banned for not having some safety feature or otherwise complying with FMVSS or some other regularity body, not because they are "affordable".
The US gave $7500 per car sold in the US to any manufacturer, with the "Buy American" restriction added only in the last two years of the policy.
I'm also curious to hear your source for the subsidies - from what I can see China has spent anywhere from 3x to 5x propping up the domestic EV industry as the US has over the last 15 years. The US had Tesla which almost went bankrupt multiple times despite the subsidies; China has a dozen EV manufacturers, half of whom are on life support now that the government is withdrawing subsidies.
The Chinese spent more money on an absolute basis, yes. They gave less per car, but built > 10x as many cars, so your number of 3-5x sounds about right.
The best source IMO is the commission that came up with the European countervailing duty of 17%.
I think that it is reasonable for the magnitude of Chinese subsidies to be cheaper per-car. Even ignoring any arguments about purchasing power and government aid, I would expect China to spend less per-car simply because the foundational technical problems in building a good consumer EV had already been addressed by the time they got started.
I'm not trying to attack the impressiveness of the Chinese EV industry, because it's going to be an important part of the future. But saying that Chinese EVs are banned in the US purely because they are too good is incomplete. A big part of why they are banned, and why the US and China have such a frosty relationship, is because Chinese trade tactics are not fair to non-state-backed competitors.
Chinese EV development started in 2001. They started from a clean sheet.
Your point about fairness is interesting because that's a position the US has given up on, especially since 2025. The European EV tariffs of 17/34 percent are fair-ish. The 100% American tariffs never were
That is insane. Smaller vehicles are safer at a social level because they do less damage when they hit something - especially a pedestrian. Regulatory bodies should be encouraging them for that reason alone (let alone all the others).
Manufacturers might prioritise the safety of their customers, and people are likely to care more about their own safety than that of others, but regulators should be looking at overall public safety which is definitely improved by encouraging small cars.
The regulatory bodies aren't specifically discriminating against smaller vehicles, they're discriminating against vehicles that haven't proven safety to passengers in crash tests acceptable to the FMVSS. The vehicles may or may not also be missing mandatory internal safety features like airbags in all the right spots, etc.
If Chinese EV manufacturers put their vehicles through these tests, include all the mandatory features, and strip out the forbidden telemetry (certain manufacturers are banned in the US for reporting to the CCP- most notably but not exclusive to Huawei) then they too can be sold here.
If anything is preventing Chinese EVs from the US market, it's almost certainly their electronic components.
This is likely confounded by the dealership model. Dealers have practically zero incentive to sell affordable cars, and especially not EVs that they’ll make almost no servicing money on. Some dealers also stock only a handful of EVs (or none) so they may not even have them to sell in the first place.
It’d be nice if affordable EV models were available from direct to consumer companies. If one could go online and buy a $22k electric hatchback that shows up in your driveway with zero haggling, it’s difficult to imagine it not selling well.
Yes, pretty much. The torque curve also slopes down as rpm increases, so an EV with really weak low end torque will feel really bad on the highway.
Having said that, there are some that are fairly mediocre without being completely terrible. The FWD Equinox EV as well as the FWD EV9 are acceptable to some people, but also pretty slow cars.
One, as you noted, is that electric motors can apply full torque from a stop, increasing perceived acceleration.
The other, and more impactful, is that electric motor power scales with cost much more cheaply than gas motors, so vehicles will oversize their electric motors.
There's a third factor. Ev's need to support fast charging. So they need to do support super high voltages and currents. That's much of the expense of a powerful EV. A powerful motor is relatively inexpensive in comparison.
If you can charge a car in 20 minutes, the battery and some other circuitry can support discharging in 20 minutes, which is an insane power level.
That's not exactly true. There is some shared wiring between the DC fast charger and the motors, but not so much that the powerful motors are "free". The wires that run between the motors and the battery are long.
I think the larger third factor is regenerative braking. That uses the exact same circuitry as powering the motors, and if you want to be able to brake quickly without the brake pads, that's a lot of kW to be absorbed.
Any way you cut it, I agree, it's an insane power level.
A powerful motor needs more copper between the battery and motor and more silicon in the inverter to handle the current. The motor is also heavier. This is all extra cost.
All that fast DC charging requires are cells capable of handling the current.
You don't get a powerful motor for free just because you can fast charge.
My 2019 Hyundai Kona has a 150kw FWD motor. I love my car, but it's power is totally and utterly stupid. I can spin my wheels while going 60km/h and flooring it. It can be downright dangerous in the wet. Thank dog for traction control I need to drive it in 'eco' mode most of the time in order to make the ride feel sane.
I think a motor with half the output would still result in a great ride, but the car would've been cheaper/lighter.
Newer EV's come out with much smaller motors it seems, which makes sense to me.
