• 0 Posts
  • 5 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2023

help-circle
  • I have this problem with organic chemistry more broadly. On the one hand, I understand that rattling off the IUPAC name of a compound is much less concise and harder to get right than just saying the brand name or chemical name (which, for pharma, is often just as bullshit of a name as the brand name). On the other, you come across names like the Eschenmoser-Claisen rearrangement vs the Johnson-Claisen rearrangement, or the Suzuki vs Stille vs Negishi vs Kumada vs Hiyama/Denmark vs Sonogashira* cross couplings. Each set consists of fundamentally the same reaction with slight variations in the specific reagents. Just saying e.g. “organozinc” instead of “Negishi” would be so much more descriptive. The authors’ names often aren’t even that helpful in an attributive sense. For instance, some of the cross couplings were actually first reported by someone else in that list (though IIRC everyone got at least one), and most of the chemists published work on at least one of the other reactions at some point.

    * Okay fine Sonogashiras are a little different what with the copper co-catalyst, but still, same mech at Pd.



  • Didn’t realize this was happening and yay -Syu went brrr and it broke my shit. Probably doesn’t help that I’m running nvidia with linux (endeavouros). Wayland doesn’t work at all (black screen on login with only mouse ptr, wrong resolution), while Xorg is now much less smooth e.g. on the switching desktop animations. Moving windows around and in-window graphics are fine. Some graphical config stuff changed too; I’m still taking inventory.

    I’m also currently playing with nvidia vs nvidia-dkms with different kernels to see if that solves anything.

    EDIT: Looks like that my configuration was failing to set nvidia_drm modeset=1 correctly due to my unfamiliarity with dracut. Manually adding nvidia_drm.modeset=1 to my kernel cmdline makes Wayland work (and quite well at that), though Xorg is still laggy.


  • One thing that helped me intuit the “sidereal” result (4) was to consider what happens as the radius of circle B approaches 0. At least in my mind, it seems pretty clear that A has to undergo at least one rotation.

    That said, I am unsure that I would have caught this as a test-taker. Derek’s videos always have some “trick”, putting me on guard, but in a testing scenario I would have seen the answer for 3 with no answer for 4, marked it down, and moved on quickly.