fullsquare

this shouldn't be surprising if you paid any amount of attention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda_network https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250310-russian-disinformation-infects-ai-chatbots-researchers-warn

i don't mean beta-oxidation, it's just a series of separated normal reactions. i mean something like this: when first learning about ketones, you might learn about aldol condensation, which has enol as a nucleophile and another carbonyl as electrophile. at some other point you might learn about strecker reaction, which has iminium ion as electrophile and cyanide as nucleophile. but really, what you can do is mix and match, and you can pair enolizable ketone and iminium (mannich reaction) or carbonyl and cyanide (cyanohydrin formation) and then generalize, for example you don't need strictly ketone for mannich, you can use any electron rich conjugated system like malonate or nitroalkane anion (henry reaction) or phenol or indole. to figure this out you need to study mechanisms. these last two are usually treated as variants of friedel-crafts reaction, but really categories like this are fake

and to get that right, you need to know how these reactive intermediates look like, how reactive they are, what influences their stability which means that ochem starts with discussion of carbocations, carboanions, radicals, their shapes and orbitals involved, hyperconjugation, solvent effects and the like. and then first reactions taught are sn1/sn2, because these showcase these fundamentals nicely, and from there, it's about introduction of more compound classes

we only had synthons introduced during lecture at around 4th year, and only for ochem path, it's not doing a lot at that point and imo would have much more impact right after ochem intro course

i always thought that the idea of synthons should be taught early on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthon

i'd say it's more important to learn mechanisms because this way you can notice these patterns of reactivity easier. at some point you'd only get new reactions that are really just pieces of other reactions you know put in a new way

there's zero reason to make chart like this, it's both barely comprehensible and touching surface level stuff only (where are palladium couplings for one)

i mean it would be hard to imagine 20 years ago precise ways things could get worse, and then

is there something you don't understand? it doesn't fucking matter what russians claim to have tested, you as nato resident are protected by nato's ability to evaporate moscow and moscow residents survival instinct, meaning that they won't start shit if they want to remain not evaporated. it works in any number of ways between any number of nuclear states, and can't be undone

nothing. safety of people in nato is guaranteed by a several of icbms somewhere in wyoming or in some submarine with putin's name on them. self-preservation is a mighty powerful instinct, and it worked for entire cold war. will easily work for a couple of decades more

you know, in comparison dubya at least tried to have this kind of diplomatic subtlety that is nowhere to be found in current administration

you can just put a flywheel on synchronous machine and it also works, especially where you have infra left over after coal plant shutdown or something similar

they might have done it this way because hydro, nuclear (or any steam turbine based) or gas (or any gas turbine based) generation is rotating generation, which helps to stabilize grid in a way that solar or (some of) wind power doesn't. on top of that, many of solar installations won't output energy without mains (grid-followers). getting rid of that would be a is a complex problem that would require infrastructure buildout and policy changes

ah yes chatbot seller says these things will become so capable, they're gonna destroy the world, just you wait and see, but need trillion dollars in financing first. op have you eaten your daily recommended pebble today?