🔥 Popular | Latest

Minecraft, Monster, and The Game: Biomes' Impact on Monster Density in Minecraft 1. Introduction and Hypothesis Minecraft is a survival/sandbox biocks. You can find monsters in the game that will spawn in that there are more monsters i came from 2009 where the goal is to survive in a world filled with ISEF dark areas. Observations has suesested n caves underground during daytime compared to at night. This suggest density of monsters in a place is affected by how many places in the area that s or monsters to spawn. The fewer places, the higher density. By this assumption, the numbes oawn in an area should be affected by the biome where the area is located SEF that the oA 3. Execution monsters who will Minccrants own system fot peogramming was used so make the exccudion aulomatic In summary, the experiment was conducted as ollows 2. Purpose The purpose of this project is to look at how changes in the mpact the number of monsters who will spawn in an area: -A platform was madc ai a predeterminot place in the game 4. Results The results are presented in arrays below weather and time got adjusied to a standard After a while the number of monsters on the platformm got counted and written down The platform was moved to a new location 13 diffencet biomes, 4 different heights and 10 different types of underlay on the platform got tested with this sctup n and conclusion ent biomes had the biggest impact on the number of monsters who spawned. The biome Deep Ocean has the highest density rs by a large margin. The follow up is the Swamp biome. Both of these biomes arc mostly water The biome with the lowest Taiga, followed by the two types of plains. These biomes has a lot of available land for monsters too spawn, so this was n the view of the hypothesis. rence between the different heights are smaller, but the difference is still there. The surface in the Minecraft world are at 64 we can see a lower density of monsters at that height. The highest platforms got the highest density of monsters s of underlay give some difference in density, but the varicty is small This can be explained by the inaccuracy of the crent types s, so it doesn't seam like the undcrlay has any effect on the monsters. se results, there seems to be no doubt that the biome and hcight an area is located, greatly affect how many monsters who will there. The hypothesi s loo spawn got the highest number of monsters on average. There seems too be some kind of correlation, but a different study be conducted too find out if this hypothesis is right s in the introduction seems to have got something right since the biomes with the least available places for To celebrate Minecraft’s 10 year anniversary, here is me and my project in this year’s Intel ISEF competition.

To celebrate Minecraft’s 10 year anniversary, here is me and my project in this year’s Intel ISEF competition.

Save
Bad, Books, and Clothes: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever. Step one: give every adult $33,600 a year, no strings attached. There is no step two. Photo: Flickr/twicepix tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.
Save
America, Bad, and Books: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever. Step one: give every adult $33,600 a year, no strings attached. There is no step two. Photo: Flickr/twicepix lazorsandparadox: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for. With debt levels spiraling out of control as they are, america might have to do this in the near future, in order to prevent economic collapse from people just not having money to spend. The only problem i forsee with this is that, in order to get the money to distribute, taxes on rich people would have to increase by a lot, and if taxes raise too high, they just fucking move to another country to avoid paying them. If there was a way to prevent this, or if the whole world implemented a standard like this at the same time thereby removing the incentive to flee tax hikes, then this would absolutely work out great
Save
Alive, Animals, and Children: (Ja)ded @thefathippy 20h maooo000 Judy Harris Yesterday at 5:04 PM. 0+ Why the zoo charge us to look at animals they stole? this ain't even yall shit Sharon @MySharona1987 Replying to @thefathippy To be fair, they are doing a lot to help pandas screw. 4:56 AM- 11 Jul 2018 mysharona1987: little-butch-crouton: severelynerdysheep: somehavegonemissing: spookyboyfelix: princess-nakamoto: mysharona1987: No, seriously: I do think zoos do a *lot* of good. Much of the time. It’s not necessarily a Seaworld situation. Yeah a lot of animals don’t even have habitats anymore anyway. So zoos are just giving them a home. Even if people come to see them nearly everyday, its better then being kicked out of their habitat eventually by man. The funds from zoos are often used to feed the animals anyway (most zoos are non profit they cant use that money for people) if you pay to go to the zoo you are paying to keep those animals alive Zoos also educate people about animals, allowing for people to fall in love with the weird and wonderful. They help promote habitat preservation and putting a stop to poaching. Please don’t dismiss zoos, they’re not the same places as they used to be in the 1800s, or even the mid 1900s. So while Zoos are absolutely miles better than they were historical, there are still many serious issues. In terms of education, while I totally get why most people believe that zoos teach people (children especially) about how to protect animals and their habitats and are great places of education, this is not actually the case. In reality viewing captive animals in zoos only teaches people how animals react to boredom, depression, and stress in captive situations. The most effective methods of education in zoos come via presenting videos, documentaries, interactive modules, graphic displays, and computer simulations. which all show animals in their natural environments and do not require any animals to actually be kept in zoos. In terms of the work Zoos to in regards to species conservation and habitat preservation, zoos really are not effective, especially compared to other conservation and preservation work. While there are zoos that do good conservation work, most of the significant conservation work is not from zoos but other organizations that work with wildlife and natural habitats. Most animals in captivity are not even classified as endangered, with the priority of Zoos being in getting hold of animals popular with visitors, rather than those who face extinction. When it comes to breeding programs (and breeding animals in captivity aren’t the best way to help in conservation)   zoos do spend plenty of money on these programs however half of the animals being bred by Zoos are not classed as endangered in the wild and 25% are not threatened species but ones popular with visitors. It’s also actually massively more expensive to keep animals captive in zoos than to protect equivalent numbers of them in the wild! When it comes to the research, few Zoos actually support meaningful scientific research (with fewer employing scientists with full-time research jobs) and of those that do employ scientists its common for these scientists to study free-living animals rather than those within the zoo. Due to the nature of any research that does take place in zoos, the results of this research also generates little information about how to best conserve species in the wild as studies of captive animals have limited benefits to animals in the wild and animals brought up in captivity are less likely to survive in the wild if reintroduced as they often don’t have the natural behaviors needed for survival in the wild. More effective methods of habitat preservation and species conservations would be a multipronged approach tackling habitat loss and climate change, investing in conservation programs in the wild, education, working with local communities, seriously addressing poaching etc. and also to move away from the Zoo model towards more ethical and effective models of species conservation.  Just a few of the other ethical issues with Zoos include surplus animals, who, when grow older, and are less attractive to patrons, will often be sold or killed. Animals who breed frequently also are sometimes sold to game farms and ranches where hunters pay to kill them and other surplus animals are sometimes sold to roadside zoos,, private individuals, animal dealers, or to laboratories for experimentation purposes. The animals not sold often end up being fed to other zoo animals. In terms of the health of these captive animals, many develop health conditions and mental health problems such as Zoochosis. Of course, a major problem with zoos as well is that the animals who live there are kept in enclosures that don’t allow them to live their lives in a natural way and don’t compare with the natural habitat the animals were meant to be in. Zoo animals have to spend day after day, week after week, year after year in the exact same enclosure. This makes their lives very monotonous. Take elephants, for example, elephants in the wild, are used to traveling many miles a day in herds of about ten related adults and their offspring but in zoos are usually kept in pairs or even isolated in incredibly small enclosures compared to what they are used to in the wild. Elephants kept in zoos often show many signs of being mental distress and the average lifespan of elephants in zoos is around 16-18 years, instead of the 50-70 years they can live in the wild. I’m just going to copy paste your response when people ask me what I’m going to school for. I’m very pro zoo and I want animals in their natural habitat just as much. This is genuinely quite an interesting discussion.
Save
Alive, Anaconda, and Animals: i-should-be-writing-rn: inlovewithaleheather: thecuckoohaslanded: gerbthenerd: alexander-lamington: thelizardprincess: biglawbear: blacksirencry: swaglexander-the-great: #That’s a#That’s a blue ringed octopus#You’re going to die do you realise that#It is literally one of the most deadly animals in the world#Not just in Australia or just in the ocean in THE WORLD#Put it DOWN#And go to a hospital jfc via platonic-rabbit  me tryna find out if this fool died “The blue-ringed octopus, despite its small size, carries enough venom to kill twenty-six adult humans within minutes. Their bites are tiny and often painless, with many victims not realizing they have been envenomated until respiratory depression and paralysis start to set in.[8] No blue-ringed octopus antivenom is available yet, making it one of the deadliest reef inhabitants in the ocean.” Holy shit And this is why I don’t go in the ocean anymore Also the blue rings literally only show up when it is distressed so this person has angered it!!! You are in danger friend!!! Actually this guy keeps them as pets they’re on his instagram (william_exotique) and he frequently holds then and I just? Don’t know why? And also every picture or video he posts of them shows the blue rings so they’re always in distress I just do not understand why he’s doing this #AMY EXPLAIN HOW DUMB THIS GUY IS  I mean OP pretty much covered it.  A blue ringed octopus is almost on the level of CONE SNAIL on the list of things you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT PICK UP UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. But ask and you shall receive,  On this episode of “Fun Facts With Cuckoo,” DEAD.  YOU’RE DEAD.  EVERYTHING IS DEAD AND YOU SHOULD NEVER TOUCH ANYTHING IN THE OCEAN EVER AGAIN. There are many things that will kill you. [citation needed] There are fewer, but still many things that will kill you FAST. There are yet fewer things that kill you fast and by such an overwhelming margin of overkill that nervous laughter is our only solace in the dark of this terrible, surprisingly Lovecraftian world of unearthly horrors that we live in. Of the things that I know about which will kill you fast via just plain insultingly potent venom, which is a not insignificant number of things because I know a not insignificant number of things, there are about 3 things in the ocean – IN THE WHOLE OCEAN – which are so insanely, mind-bogglingly deadly that there is pretty much no possible hope for survival (I mean you CAN, but god help you if you’re ever in that situation, because god’s just about damn near the only thing that CAN help you).  THE. WHOLE. OCEAN. Those three things are the Irukandji (a tiny (1cm) species of box jellyfish, which has stingers not only on its tentacles but on its BELL, for reasons no one has definitively figured out, and is so toxic despite its size its sting can cause a severe brain hemorrhage), the cone snail (a group of carnivorous sea snails that is accepted to be the most venomous animals on earth, with a STUPIDLY fast acting and extremely powerful neurotoxin that has in at least one case killed a human ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY, because the swimmer who found two beautiful shells (unfortunately cone snails tend to have very pretty shells which makes people want to pick them up) was holding them up for a picture and ended up being stabbed in the neck by not one but TWO cone snails at the same time, and it is believed that she was literally dead before she hit the ground, I mean LITERALLY in a 100% non-fictional and non-exaggerated way, in between the time the two cone snails stabbed her and the time her limp body hit the sand, she was not alive anymore), and the blue ringed octopus. It is POSSIBLE to survive any of these.  But not without immediate medical attention.  Of these three, the Irukandji is by far the most treatable, because Australia and other coastal regions (including Florida and other parts of the US) are kind of experienced in dealing with box jellyfish. The blue ringed octopus will fucking kill you.  There’s no antidote for their venom, ONE COMPONENT OF WHICH (tetrodotoxin) is 1200 times deadlier than cyanide.  It’s a powerful neurotoxin (most of the worst venoms are because the species that produce them need to kill or at least paralyze their prey quickly, like jellyfish whose fragile tentacles could be damaged if their food doesn’t stop struggling) that attacks the sodium channels and causes muscle paralysis.  It doesn’t necessarily kill you quickly.  It PARALYZES you quickly, so that you can’t really call for help or describe the problem, and you will probably end up slowly suffocating from a paralyzed diaphragm.  Tetrodotoxin can be metabolized by the body in a matter of hours, but it can also kill you in a matter of minutes if you get a lethal dose (which isn’t much, the LD50 or median lethal dose, the dose at which you have a 50% chance of survival, is only 8 MICROGRAMS per kilogram of body weight (as tested in mice)).  This is, by venom standards, not a large amount, which means the animal that is capable of putting this venom inside your body is very very good at killing the absolute shit out of you. DON’T TOUCH THE BLUE RINGED OCTOPUS. Now, because overkill is my motto, let me briefly explain why Conus geographus is the undisputed champion of YOU WILL NOT SURVIVE, AND FURTHERMORE FUCK YOU FOR THINKING OTHERWISE. A cone snail walks into a bar.  You’d expect the bartender to ask, “what’s your poison,” but they were paralyzed before they could ask and OH LOOK they’re already FUCKING DEAD ON THE GROUND. Conus geographus is about 4-6 inches long and nature’s equivalent of Avada Kedavra.  Cone snails literally have their own KIND of toxins named after them: conotoxin.  Not only is there no antidote, but their venom AGGRESSIVELY RESISTS our ability to find a cure, because we barely understand how it works AND conotoxins are so internally varied, even within a single species, that any one antidote isn’t going to help because they’re constantly mutating and evolving their venom to prevent their prey from evolving a resistance to it.  Plus their venom is like, a bunch of different venoms all at once JUST IN CASE any one of them wasn’t good enough. I want you to read these two sentences from the wiki page on conotoxin: “Conotoxins have a variety of mechanisms of actions, most of which have not been determined.” “The LD50 of conotoxin is 50 ng/kg.” Remember how the LD50 of tetrodotoxin is 8μg/kg?  Conotoxin is 160 times more potent.  FIFTY NANOGRAMS PER KILOGRAM HAS A 50% CHANCE OF KILLING YOU. A 220-POUND HUMAN HAS A 50% CHANCE OF SURVIVAL AGAINST JUST 5 MICROGRAMS OF CONOTOXIN.   I DID SOME MATH.   IT WOULD TAKE 7-9 MILLIGRAMS OF CONOTOXIN TO KILL A BLUE WHALE, THE HEAVIEST ANIMAL TO EVER LIVE. (based on weight estimates from 300-400,000 lbs.) Conus geographus is so fucking deadly that “In two cases of envenomation, only 0.0002-0.0005 mg resulted in severe paralysis.” THIS THING KILLS STUFF SO HARD THAT BEFORE YOU HEAR THE FIRST “MORTAL KOMBAT” IN THE MORTAL KOMBAT THEME, THERE’S PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN A FATALITY. And guess what?  Cone snails don’t do that NOOB SHIT with the superficial biting or stinging.  Your wetsuit or gloves won’t protect you.  Because homeboy didn’t bring teeth to evolution’s knife fight.  Oh no.  It brought a motherfucking radula POISON HARPOON.  It’s lightning fast and has way more piercing power than some silly little cnidocytes or salivary bacteria. Another component of their venom is being researched for its potential as a pain reliever.  “WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT????” you might reasonably ask.  And you would be right to do so, because science has gone too far and has surely sinned against the very image of Mollusca Kedavra.  Well, it turns out the answer is “Research shows that certain component proteins of the venom target specific human pain receptors and can be up to 10,000 times more potent than morphine without morphine’s addictive properties and side-effects.”  That’s right, the part of their venom that SPECIFICALLY DOESN’T HURT YOU is up to 10,000 times more potent than morphine. Also, Conus geographus (along with one other cone snail species, C. tulipa) is the only known non-human animal to weaponize insulin.  In addition to the normal insulin that the snails produce for their own use, their bodies manufacture an ADDITIONAL insulin molecule that is similar to the kind produced in fish (which they eat) for the sole purpose of stunning their prey through hypoglycemic shock.  BECAUSE APPARENTLY THEY DON’T FEEL LIKE THEY’D KILL YOU HARD ENOUGH OTHERWISE. IF you are going to survive the ALMIGHTY CONE SNAIL, WHO KNOWS NO FEAR, TRIUMPHANT HEDGEMON OF THE MOLECULAR ARMS RACE, TRUE BORN HEIR TO THE SCYTHE OF DEATH ITSELF, FISHSLAYER, GOD AMONG MOLLUSKS, WHOSE WRATH IS MERCIFUL ONLY IN ITS BREVITY, ADMIRABLE IN ITS BEAUTY AND UNSULLIED BY THE UNWORTHY TOUCH OF MORTAL HANDS OR SCALES OR REALLY ANYTHING IN RANGE OF ITS RADULA HARPOON, then literally the only thing that’s going to save you is for you to be kept alive artificially (externalizing your respiratory functions to force your body to continue breathing, basically) until the effects of the venom wear off.  And because of how quickly this venom acts, you need to get that medical attention VERY, VERY FAST. And if you don’t get it, you will still be conscious while the paralysis slowly suffocates you to death. Don’t touch the pretty shells. I’ve never been so intrigued to learn how easily I could be fucking exterminated from existence by the overpowered sea creatures of the world. You’ve done a better job at keeping my attention then any of my teachers ever have. You know what I’m putting this on the writing blog cause I personally can see potential in some fantasy villain attempting to weaponise cone snailsIn which case, all hail snail king 🐌
Save