no, i mean theoretically who knows, but practically no. compressing something to be more dense than a solid is energy intense. you are surpassing the bond energy of moleculesto do it. second, compressing enough osmium is going to take less, but still bigajoules, of energy. the compressive stress is immense. anything that could hold thht stress is much too big to fit in the package.

it kinda does both, there are more mice but the more naturalized habitat gives them more places to hide that isnt your house, especially in the spring/summer fall, but winter too. I dont know, others get mice all the time anyway, we occasionally do, i dont know if it’s an improvement or not. I do know that a well sealed house in the woods with totally native habitat for acres (not mine sadly, lol) has far fewer pests than in any suburb house so i think there’s merit.

they are indeed very alien it’s true. And i suppose, i just dont really want people thinking bees are immune to smoke or other airborne toxin.

Another fun fact is that bee flight muscles are directly saturated with oxygen and have a power density comparable to helicopters. The whole bee in flight is comparable to a car. Crazy creatures.

am i the only one who notices that this logic makes no sense? it doesnt matter that they have no lungs, they still are susceptible to both heat and airborn toxins, they perform gas exchange. They lived because the heat and smoke were below lethal toxic levels for them.

that’s not really relevant to the question at hand. “but magic” is clearly not an interesting answer when people are playing around with physics.

The light diffracts before it reaches the lens so this wont help. Also, refraction doesnt change the wavelength of light, it just takes time to bounce and re-emit through the medium.

Both blue and green eyes in humans and blues and many greens in vertebrates are structural, yeah. Yes the structural coloring could be recreated in fur or skin. (noting that many mammals do structural IR effects in their fur, famously polar bears)

more accurately, orange pigments are readily available. Nothing fundamentally stops mammals (or anything else) from developing a green. Note for example many animals have green eyes.

the diffraction limit of a lens cant really be circumvented optically, it’s a fundamental limit of light due to being waves. so some insane refractive index wont help.

You ninja’d me lol. but that’s a good point about the interference.

many eyes are near the diffraction limit (for human sized eyes the diffraction limit is around 20/10 vision). To have better accuity you factually need larger eyes. Although it’s the size of the lens that matters more than pupil size strictly. The pupil modifies the lens optics but the lens determines the limit.

many for profit companies have done this before, however:

Think about the incentive structure here, it incentivises not learning about bugs in the software. it incentivises as this always does, that those with money to swing around get additional explicit systemic power to dictate the features and bugs that get fixed. this is a bounty system with extra steps and not learning about bugs. and to boot, if a company really wants to pay, they can probably pay a dev of their own to work on many of these issues. it doesnt seem like this really solves any issues and just imposes a pay-to-speak system. ick.

It’s not a strict rule, sex science is a thing that can be done with ethical review same as other medical research. the commenter im not sure is giving an accurate picture of this topic.

many people, most actually, “do taxes” to file for a return. if they do not, they likely miss out on hundreds to thousands of dollars that were automatically collected with their paycheck that they did not owe. this is free to do, others linked freetaxusa, for example.

Bread mold is not one universal thing, while certain molds may be more common, without doing involved identification you will not be able to determine the species and therefore safety of bread mold. Even if the majority of the time it is a safe species, you should not be knowingly risking it.

tomato tomato

you say that but your method is only just as intuitive lol, wild how many methods work.

that is believable, no structures should have been where fukushima was nor with the lacking tsunami protections it had.

did i claim chornobyl didnt have any effects or are you just searching for stuff to argue about?

killed hundreds of thousands

more like a few thousand ever, if you are really really conservative tens of thousand, though the methodology to get there is unscientific. tmi killed nobody, fukushima will have killed nobody. meanwhile people falling off roofs installing solar or accidents working on wind are much more common. keep doing solar and wind, but your perception about nuclear is wholly irrational and unfounded.