Tumgik
#mit
nasa · 21 days
Text
Tumblr media
Chris Williams
Born in New York City, Chris Williams considers Potomac, Maryland, to be his hometown. A private pilot and Eagle Scout, Williams is a board-certified medical physicist and holds a doctorate in physics from MIT. https://go.nasa.gov/49YJJmf
Make sure to follow us on Tumblr for your regular dose of space!
1K notes · View notes
informationatlas · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
Parrots learn to make video calls to chat with other parrots, then develop friendships with each other
Researchers from Northeastern University, in conjunction with scientists from MIT and the University of Glasgow, conducted a study exploring the impact of teaching a group of domesticated birds to communicate using tablets and smartphones. The findings indicate that utilizing video calls may assist parrots in mimicking the communication patterns observed in wild birds, potentially enhancing their behavior and overall well-being in the homes of their owners.
via smithsonianmag.com
2K notes · View notes
vixen-academia · 8 months
Text
Free MIT online courses that sound interesting
Arts & Literature
Introduction to World Music
Reading Fiction
Literary Interpretation: Virginia Woolf's Shakespeare
Introduction to Photography
Foundations of Western Culture II: Renaissance to Modernity
Studies in Poetry - Briths Poetry and the Sciences of the Mind
Studies in Literary History: Modernism: From Nietzsche to Fellini
Screen Women: Body Narratives in Popular American Film
Studies in Poetry: "What's the Use of Beauty"
Queer Cinema and Visual Culture
Monteverdi to Mozart: 1600 - 1800
Writing and Experience: Reading and Writing Autobiography
Advanced Topics in Hispanic Literature and Film: The Films of Luis Buñel
Major Authors: Rewriting Genesis: "Paradise Lost" and Twentieth-Century Fantasy
Arthurian Literature and Celtic Colonization
Contemporary Literature: Britsh Novel Now
Studies in Poetry: 20th Century Irish Poetry: The Shadow of W. B. Yeats
Writing About Literature: Writing About Love
Introduction to European and Latin American Fiction: Great Books On The Page and On The Screen
Popular Culture and Narrative: Use and Abuse of the Fairy Tale
Victorian Literature and Culture
Reading Poetry
English Renaissance Drama: Theatre and Society in the Age of Shakespeare
Introduction to Fiction
International Woman's Voice
Major Authors: Oscar Wilde and the "90's"
Prizewinners: Nobelistas
American Authors: American Women Authors
Shakespeare, Film and Media
Japanese Literature and Cinema
Woman's Novels: A Weekly Book Club
Classics of Chinese Literature
Major English Novels
Topics in South Asia Literature and Culture
Introduction to Literary Theory
History & Social Studies
American Classics
The Middle East in the 20th Century
Africa and the Politics of Knowledge
The Rise of Modern Science
European Imperialism in the 19th and 20th Century
Philosophy of Love
Human Rights: At Home and Abroad
The Nature of Creativity
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Riots, Rebellions, Revolutions
Introduction to the History of Technology
Ancient Philosophy
Youth Political Participation
982 notes · View notes
oldguydoesstuff · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media
In 1978 MIT CS students Danny Hillis and Brian Silverman designed a working computer capable of playing tic-tac-toe against a human opponent entirely out of Tinker Toys.
The machine consisted of 10,000 wooden parts and fishing line, and was designed with the help of a LISP program running on a DEC PDP-10.
In a letter to computer pioneer Gordon Bell describing the project, Hillis said the machine could have been built by any six-year-old with 500 sets of Tinker Toys, and a PDP-10.
298 notes · View notes
paper-mario-wiki · 4 months
Text
I've got a question to someone more Mathematically Learned than me:
What is the current Edge Of Human Knowledge in regards to the origins and fundamentals of the natural world? What's the current thread that most people are trying to follow to get down to like. The exact reason for the nature of the universe? I've heard that in the first second directly after the big bang, things were quote "a little weird," unquote. And I want to know what that means. I'd like to know what gaps in our knowledge of physics we are most focused on trying to fill right now.
183 notes · View notes
girlactionfigure · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
awiderframe
224 notes · View notes
Text
Beziehung für immer kann es nur geben, wenn man in der Zeit der Wegwerfgesellschaft den Mut zum reparieren hat.
443 notes · View notes
Text
i learned that the smoot is a unit of measure named for Oliver R. Smoot, an MIT student who as a fraternity pledge was forced to measure the Harvard Bridge using himself as a ruler. A smoot is equal to five feet, seven inches. (x)
Tumblr media
339 notes · View notes
reasonsforhope · 1 year
Link
“When it comes to explaining Roman engineering, people looking to demonstrate their genius have a variety of use cases, but the secret to why their concrete has remained when even modern buildings crumble after just a few years of disuse has eluded scientists.
However at MIT, scientists have cracked their concrete code to show that Roman concrete was self-repairing—it could naturally close cracks in as little as 2 weeks...
Indeed, the Romans did things with concrete that modern societies haven’t—just look at the Pantheon in Rome which still has the world’s largest unreinforced concrete dome. Aqueducts built to water the city literally still do, 2,000 years and sometimes more after they were built.
It was once assumed that lime was added to concrete with water to create a paste in a process called slaking, but by using spectroscopic imaging, Masic and his colleagues at MIT, and elsewhere in Switzerland and Italy, have determined that the Romans heated the lime ash to high temperatures to create what is known today as “quicklime.”
“The benefits of hot mixing are twofold,” Masic says. “First, when the overall concrete is heated to high temperatures, it allows chemistries that are not possible if you only used slaked lime, producing high-temperature-associated compounds that would not otherwise form. Second, this increased temperature significantly reduces curing and setting times since all the reactions are accelerated, allowing for much faster construction.”
In such concrete as this, cracks that form allow the easy travel of the lime clasts into open space which, when coming in contact with water, seal and close the cracks. The team mixed their own Roman concrete and it took only 2 weeks for a deliberately inflicted crack to close.
By contrast a contemporary concrete block was made without quicklime and it never repaired itself.
As a result, the team are working to commercialize this as self-healing Roman concrete in order to reduce the 8% of global emissions attributed to the manufacture and laying of concrete in cities.” -via Good News Network, 1/9/23
778 notes · View notes
dihalect · 5 days
Text
for months, MIT has been punishing students who speak up or protest for palestine. last week, the undergrad association held a referendum to establish solidarity with pro-palestinian activists on campus, to call for a ceasefire, and to tell the administration to sever ties with israel.
over 40% of undergraduates voted, and the referendum passed!
Tumblr media Tumblr media
(you can read the text of the referendum here)
44 notes · View notes
Text
Q-Does Gay's resignation mark the end of DEI?A-No because Harvard is a cesspool.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Tumblr media
54 notes · View notes
dragoneyes618 · 3 months
Text
"Last week, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania were called to testify before Congress about the alarming rise of anti-Semitism on their campuses, and their tepid responses to it, in the wake of October 7.
By now, you have probably heard about the trio’s horrendous overall performance, punctuated by their smug inability to respond to the simple question of whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their schools’ codes of conduct. Since that time, the president of UPenn has stepped down, and support for the other two is wavering.
In case you are wondering, their answer should have been an unequivocal “yes, it violates our polices.” The right to free speech is fundamental, but it does have limits: The First Amendment is not a pass to threaten, harass, intimidate or otherwise violate the rights of others.
For the record, even those pundits who (incorrectly) defended the university presidents’ testimony as being legally correct, if morally tone deaf, had to admit that it did represent a glaring double standard. Each of these universities has in recent years protected other minority groups from even “micro-aggressions” by effectively and ruthlessly shutting down speech that their leaders find offensive.
Struggling to answer whether calls for genocide against Jews constitutes bullying, after you have already officially labeled “fatphobia” as “violence” and “using the wrong pronoun” as a form of “abuse,” is pathetic, and to see these schools pretending that they are genuinely concerned about free speech all of a sudden is nothing short of laughable. In the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 2024 College Free Speech Rankings, for example, out of 248 US campuses, Penn and Harvard were ranked 247th and 248th, respectively. If you are only concerned about shutting down speech when that speech targets Jews, well, there is a word for that.
How Free Is Free Speech?
The First Amendment does not protect trespassing, vandalism, harassment, assault, or the destruction of property. Nor does it protect speech that is not meant to inform or persuade, but to disrupt lawful endeavors —activities like going to the kosher dining hall or studying in a library. The First Amendment does not protect someone who is making true threats, nor does it protect intimidation — “a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.”
Just a few months ago, in Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the United States Supreme Court clarified that this does not necessarily mean that the person speaking actually intended to threaten the victim. Rather, the Court imposed a recklessness standard — i.e., the First Amendment does not protect a person who consciously disregards a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence. To be clear, calling for the genocide of Jews, as the pro-Hamas student groups on campus have consistently been doing, does create a hostile environment for Jewish people on campus, violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is not protected by the First Amendment.
It was obvious that all three university presidents were reading off scripts written by their respective attorneys (several of whom were sitting behind them and nodding throughout the hearing). The question then becomes: What now? What is the critical error that their lawyers (and the general counsels at other universities where Jewish students are being targeted) have made in failing to stand up for Jewish people, and how should they immediately correct it?
The answer is simple, and it is exactly what students, parents, donors, and the government alike should all be demanding from these institutions: They should continue to respect the First Amendment, but they should apply the appropriate standard for speech on a campus.
From a legal perspective, it is easy to see where the university legal counsels’ confusion specifically arose. Those horrible answers were written under the assumption that the only limits a university can put on student speech are the limits contemplated in the foundational Supreme Court First Amendment case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
In that case, regarding speech at a KKK rally, the Court held that a state could only punish speech that “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg is famously a very high standard, and that is precisely where the universities are hiding: Despite the hundreds of anecdotal incidents from the last two months, and notwithstanding all of the well-known studies confirming that inflammatory discriminatory anti-Semitic rhetoric leads directly to anti-Semitic violence, officials are telling students and parents and now Congress that their hands are tied because, in most cases, there has not been direct enough incitement.
Campus Standards Are Different
Now, the truth is that even under the Brandenburg standard, schools can still impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. As the Court in Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972) explained: “The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.”
So even under that paradigm, any activities that disrupt the educational enterprise and functioning of a school may be restricted. Common sense dictates that rallies celebrating calls for anti-Semitic genocide disrupt the educational enterprise and functioning of a school because they leave some students genuinely fearful for their lives.
But that argument is also unnecessary, because Brandenburg is absolutely the wrong standard for schools to be using, and university presidents and lawyers need to correct that mistake as soon as possible.
In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Supreme Court explained that the Constitution does allow for schools to shut down speech that will “materially and substantially interfere” with the “requirements of appropriate discipline” in the operation of the school” or that “invad[es] the rights of others.” That is the standard that these schools must now vigilantly enforce.
Of course, private colleges and universities, like Harvard, Penn, and MIT, can restrict certain speech, conduct, and demonstrations, in most cases, without triggering any constitutional issues. But even a public university is not a public street, and the rules for what speech must be allowed on each are very different.
The Supreme Court in Healy v. James (1972) cited Tinker to hold that university officials do not have to tolerate student activities that breach reasonable campus rules; interrupt the educational process; or interfere with other students’ rights to receive an education. (This is especially true when the student speech is happening in school-sponsored forums, or is reasonably perceived as somehow bearing the school’s imprimatur.)
The Court has also repeatedly held (in Bethel v. Fraser [1986] and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier [1988]) that schools have even greater latitude to limit student expression if they can establish a “legitimate pedagogical concern.” Ensuring that all students — including Jewish students — have a safe and harassment-free environment in which to learn should be an overwhelmingly legitimate pedagogical concern.
Under the Tinker line of cases, schools do not even have to wait for a breach to actually occur; administrators can act if they can “reasonably forecast” that the expression in question would disrupt school discipline or operation, or violate the rights of other students. In Melton v. Young, for example, the Court ruled that schools could prohibit the wearing of a Confederate flag jacket because it was reasonable to assume that it would be disruptive in an environment of heightened racial tension.
Waving a Hamas flag and cheering on slaughter, as bodies are still being identified and hostages are still being held, announcing solidarity with the “resistance” and that “armed struggle” — i.e., murder —“is “legitimate,” and yes, calling for the genocide of Jews, are all behaviors that are no less likely to cause a disruption than a jacket.
Tinkering with Free Speech
Under Tinker, it is more than reasonable to forecast that there will be substantial disruptions that would violate the right of Jewish students to a non-hostile educational environment if groups are allowed to host events that glorify and celebrate the murder of Jews.
Schools can and must act now to prevent that from continuing to happen, using both common sense and the relevant case law to draw the appropriate line. The limits on the First Amendment are there to help the government with its primary responsibility —to protect all of its citizens from harm —and authorities must be constantly vigilant to enforce the law correctly.
Regardless, the answer to “what now?” then, is this: Everyone calling for change should articulate what that change is, and institutions fixing their policies should clearly explain how they will “tinker” with their free speech formulas so that the next time their leaders are asked if calling for a Jewish genocide is problematic, the answer can just be “yes.”
-Goldfeder, M. (2023g, December 13). Poison Ivies - Mishpacha Magazine. Mishpacha Magazine - The premier Magazine for the Jewish World. https://mishpacha.com/poison-ivies/
76 notes · View notes
Tumblr media
Chemists create organic molecules in a rainbow of colors that could be useful as organic light-emitting diodes
Chains of fused carbon-containing rings have unique optoelectronic properties that make them useful as semiconductors. These chains, known as acenes, can also be tuned to emit different colors of light, which makes them good candidates for use in organic light-emitting diodes. The color of light emitted by an acene is determined by its length, but as the molecules become longer, they also become less stable, which has hindered their widespread use in light-emitting applications. MIT chemists have now come up with a way to make these molecules more stable, allowing them to synthesize acenes of varying lengths. Using their new approach, they were able to build molecules that emit red, orange, yellow, green, or blue light, which could make acenes easier to deploy in a variety of applications.
Read more.
67 notes · View notes
stevebattle · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
SwarmBots by James McLurkin (2004), MIT AI Laboratory, Cambridge, MA. SwarmBots are programmed to emulate the behavior of bees. Equipped with bump sensors, a self-charger, a radio modem and an audio system, the robots are autonomous yet travel in a fleet. When one robot makes a discovery, it signals the group. McLurkin (pictured): “When I started on this swarm project, I visited a biologist at Cornell, Professor Thomas Seeley. He's done a bunch of really good work studying honeybees. I think it would be very exciting to test his research on robots, to see if the robots can do the same things as bees can. They ought to be able to do similar things. They have similar sensors and have access to the same kind of information. They have the same kind of physical limitations, especially in terms of their communication with each other. Bees don't have cell phones. They don't have GPS. They are not sending e-mail to each other. They are only communicating to nearby bees. And the robots have the same kind of communication constraints, same kind of mobility. Bees pretty much live in a two-dimensional world. They do fly but they don't fly to 40,000 feet. They stay pretty close to the surface of the Earth, so you can imagine that they look kind of like a bunch of robots rolling around on the ground.” – An Obsession With Robots: A Talk With James McLurkin, by Peter Tyson, NOVA Science Now.
64 notes · View notes
science70 · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
Installation view of the collaborative exhibition Exploration, Hayden Gallery, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970.
Photo: Nishan Bichajian
54 notes · View notes
swordsintheforest · 6 months
Text
MIT engineers have developed ultralight fabric solar cells that can quickly and easily turn any surface into a power source.
These durable, flexible solar cells, which are much thinner than a human hair, are glued to a strong, lightweight fabric, making them easy to install on a fixed surface. They can provide energy on the go as a wearable power fabric or be transported and rapidly deployed in remote locations for assistance in emergencies. They are one-hundredth the weight of conventional solar panels, generate 18 times more power-per-kilogram, and are made from semiconducting inks using printing processes that can be scaled in the future to large-area manufacturing.
When they tested the device, the MIT researchers found it could generate 730 watts of power per kilogram when freestanding and about 370 watts-per-kilogram if deployed on the high-strength Dyneema fabric, which is about 18 times more power-per-kilogram than conventional solar cells.
They also tested the durability of their devices and found that, even after rolling and unrolling a fabric solar panel more than 500 times, the cells still retained more than 90 percent of their initial power generation capabilities.
58 notes · View notes