Hello,
I'm able to query a page and it's block children getting the image reference.
{"object":"block","id":"ffd59d34-5480-415c-955f-18baa5200e9d","parent":{"type":"page_id","page_id":"116660b2-d33a-4b79-b12e-71b544ce020d"},"created_time":"2024-05-19T12:38:00.000Z","last_edited_time":"2024-05-19T12:39:00.000Z","created_by":{"object":"user","id":":censored:36:4124026701:"},"last_edited_by":{"object":"user","id":":censored:36:4124026701:"},"has_children":false,"archived":false,"in_trash":false,"type":"image","image":{"caption":[],"type":"file","file":{"url":"https://prod-files-secure.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/:censored:36:b560e8af1f:/508c6973-5676-47f8-a644-0f902d29b999/Untitled.png?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAT73L2G45HZZMZUHI%2F20240519%2Fus-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240519T125533Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Signature=96fb9434d65778187da1f0508f99bfc8eb7d8a604f5324246994aed2a249cd1f&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&x-id=GetObject","expiry_time":"2024-05-19T13:55:33.092Z"}},"request_id":"643480d1-8e8e-400f-b61b-7d4b51d6ce96"}
But, when I try to access the URL for the image, I always get the error The request signature we calculated does not match the signature you provided. Check your key and signing method. from AWS.
I've ensured that I'm accessing the URL within the 1-hour timeframe before the expiry time.
I scoured the docs and Googled this error pertaining to Notion images and I can't find anything. The references I could find about accessing the image have a URL that's structured differently.

Can someone pls help me in structure for paper 2? i am having difficulty in the question of where they give 2 financial data now i already calculated all calculations should i answer individually the data or should i compare in it? and in both data we write the same points?

CSS stands for Cascading Style Sheets, is a fundamental technology used in web development to control the presentation and layout of HTML documents. While HTML provides the structure of a webpage, CSS enhances its appearance by defining how HTML elements should be displayed on the screen, in print, or even as speech.
In order to understand the basic of CSS, we need to understand how it works. CSS works by selecting HTML elements using id, classess attributes or tags itself and applying styling rules to them. These rules dictate attributes such as color, size, font, spacing, and positioning. By separating content from presentation, CSS allows developers to create visually appealing and consistent designs across multiple web pages with ease.
CSS operates on a cascade principle, where multiple style rules can be applied to the same element, with specificity and order determining which rule takes precedence. This enables developers to efficiently manage styles across complex projects. CSS is one of the foundation in order to enhance the web development skills.
Over the years, CSS has evolved significantly, with new features and capabilities continually being added. CSS preprocessors like Sass and LESS have extended CSS’s functionality by introducing variables, mixins, and other programming constructs, making stylesheets more maintainable and scalable.
Furthermore, with the rise of responsive web design, CSS plays a crucial role in creating layouts that adapt to different screen sizes and devices, providing users with an optimal viewing experience across desktops, tablets, and smartphones.
Understanding of Cascading Style Sheet (CSS)

1. Selection of HTML Elements: CSS employs various selectors to target specific HTML elements or groups of elements. Selectors can be based on element type (e.g., for paragraphs), class (e.g., .header), ID (e.g., #main-content), or other attributes like data attributes or pseudo-classes (e.g., :hover for styling when the mouse is over an element). This flexibility allows developers to precisely target elements for styling.
2. Application of Styling Rules: Once an element is selected, CSS applies styling rules to it. These rules define how the element should appear and behave. CSS properties cover a wide range of design aspects, including:Color: Specifies the foreground and background colors.Size: Controls the dimensions of the element, such as width, height, padding, and margins.Font: Determines the typeface, size, style (e.g., bold, italic), and other text properties.Spacing: Manages the spacing between elements, including margins, padding, and borders.Positioning: Controls the placement of elements on the webpage, including static, relative, absolute, and fixed positioning.
3. Separation of Content and Presentation: One of the core principles of CSS is separating content from presentation. HTML defines the structure and content of a webpage, while CSS handles the presentation and layout. This separation allows developers to make changes to the design without altering the underlying content, making it easier to maintain and update websites.
4. Creating Visually Appealing Designs: CSS enables developers to unleash their creativity and design visually stunning websites. With CSS, developers can customize every aspect of the webpage’s appearance, from colors and typography to layout and animations. This flexibility empowers developers to create unique and engaging user experiences tailored to their audience.
5. Consistency Across Multiple Pages: By applying CSS rules consistently across multiple web pages, developers can ensure a cohesive and unified design language throughout the website. CSS allows developers to define styles once and apply them universally, saving time and effort while maintaining consistency across the site.

Properties of CSS
CSS properties are the building blocks that developers use to style HTML elements. These properties allow developers to control various aspects of an element’s appearance, layout, and behavior. Here are some commonly used CSS properties grouped by their functionalities:

1. Typography: This properties is used to control the various aspects of the text elements of HTML.font-family: Sets the font of the text.font-size: Sets the size of the text.font-weight: Specifies the thickness of the font.font-style: Defines the style of the font (e.g., italic).text-align: Aligns the text horizontally within its container.line-height: Sets the height of each line of text.
2. Color and Background: This properties is used to control the color of any HTML elements like < div >, < span >, < header > etc.color: Defines the color of the text.background-color: Sets the background color of an element.opacity: Specifies the transparency of an element.background-image: Sets an image as the background of an element.background-size: Defines the size of the background image.background-position: Specifies the starting position of the background image.
3. Layout: This properties is used to control the how the HTML elements will functions. For example, its display properties or height, or position etc.display: Defines how an element is displayed (e.g., block, inline, flex).width and height: Sets the width and height of an element.margin, padding, and border: Controls the spacing around and within an element.float: Positions an element to the left or right within its container.position: Specifies the positioning method of an element (e.g., static, relative, absolute, fixed).top, bottom, left, right: Sets the position of an element relative to its containing element.
4. Box Model: The box model is used to set the HTML elements in box like element by defining its height and width.box-sizing: Defines how the total width and height of an element are calculated.border-radius: Rounds the corners of an element’s border.box-shadow: Adds a shadow effect to an element.overflow: Specifies how content that overflows the element’s box is handled.
5. animation: Defines keyframe animations.transition: Specifies the transition effect for a CSS property.transform: Applies transformations (e.g., rotate, scale) to elements.

In summary, CSS is an indispensable tool for web developers, empowering them to transform HTML documents into visually appealing and functional web experiences. Understanding its principles and techniques is essential for anyone looking to create modern, professional-looking websites.
Read the Guide Here: https://leafyweb.com/home/project/brief-introduction-to-css/

What’s the Difference Between On-Page SEO and Off-Page SEO?

On-page SEO focuses on optimizing parts of your website that are within your control, while off-page SEO focuses on increasing the authority of your domain through content creation and earning backlinks from other websites. To further understand the difference between the two, you have to understand, at a basic level, how search engine algorithms work. Let’s break it down.
There are two main buckets that search engines (SEO) look at when evaluating your site compared to other sites on the web.

1. On-page SEO looks at what your site (or your page) is about
2. Off-page SEO looks at how authoritative and popular your site is

On-Page vs. Off-Page SEO: What’s the Difference?

Put simply, what you rank for is largely determined by on-page factors, while how high you rank in the search results is largely determined by off-page factors.

How Does Each Type of SEO Affect Your Rankings?

What is On-Page SEO?

On-page SEO (also known as “on-site” SEO) is the act of optimizing different parts of your website that affect your search engine rankings. Where your website appears in search engine results pages is determined by a number of ranking factors including site accessibility, page speed, optimized content, keywords, title tags, etc. On-page SEO is about optimizing the stuff that you have control over and can change on your own website.

On-page SEO checklist:

How do you make sure your on-page SEO tactics are up to snuff? Here is a helpful checklist for on-site optimizations that can help curate your strategy.

Title Tags

Put your targeted keywords in the title tag of each page on your site. There are many best practices that go into writing an effective title tag.

• Limit your title tags to 55-60 characters (including spaces)
• Push the keyword closer to the beginning of the title (ONLY if it sounds natural)
• Don’t stuff your keywords
• Include brand at the end of the title tag, separated by a pipe bar () Example: “Chicago SEO Digital Third Coast”

Headings (H1)

Headings are usually the largest words on the page, and for that reason, search engines give them a little more weight than your other page copy. It is a good idea to work your target keywords into the headings of each web page but make sure you accurately reflect your page’s great content.
Make sure your H1s limited to one per page, all other headers are H2 or H3

URL structure

Put keywords into your URLs if possible. However, do not go changing all of your current URLs just so they have keywords in them. You shouldn’t change old URLs unless you plan on redirecting your old ones to your new ones. Consult a professional before doing this.

• Label your directories and folders in a way that makes sense for users
• Don’t repeat keywords in your URL more than once. Keywords are helpful, but overdoing it effects user experience. Example: /best-socks-comparison-best-socks-best-socks?
• Keep URLs as short as possible

Alt text for images

Any content management system should allow you to add something called “alt text” to all images on your website. This text isn’t visible to the average visitor – alt text is in fact used by screen reader software to help blind internet users understand the content of your images. Search engines crawl images in a similar way, so inserting some relevant keywords while accurately describing the image will help search engines understand your page’s content.
Writing an alt attribute for each image keeps your website in compliance with WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). Keep the following things in mind when writing alt text:

• Thoroughly describe the image in 8-10 words
• Include your targeted keyword where it sounds most natural
• Include, if relevant, a geo-locator (e.g., Chicago)

Fast-loading pages, or page load speed

Google wants to help its users find what they’re looking for as quickly as possible to provide the best user experience. Therefore, optimizing your pages to load faster helps your site rank higher in the search results.
Google has a tool called PageSpeed Insights that will analyze your site on both mobile and desktop. and then suggest tips to optimize page speed. There are also several quick fixes to eliminate whatever is bogging your site down and slowing your page load time. Key site speed factors to consider:

• Minimizing HTTP requests
• Making sure server response time is <200ms
• Setting browser caching to at least a week or longer
• Enabling Gzip compression
• Having image sizes under 100kb (.jpg, .png, .gif)
• Placing all CSS in an external style sheet
• Minifying all JS, CSS and HTML
• Prioritizing above the fold content loading

Mobile Friendliness

In recent years, Google has prioritized mobile page loading speed as a key ranking metric.
How do you know if your website is mobile-friendly? Unfortunately, Google recently dropped support for some free public tools that helped. However, you can now use Google Search Console to analyze this type of information. Specifically, the Core Web Vitals report can help you identify if your mobile pages are loading slower than they should be.

Page Content

The content on your pages needs to be useful to people. If they search for something too specific to find your page, they need to be able to find what they’re looking for. It needs to be easy to read and provide value to the end user. Google has various ways to measure if your content is useful.

• Aim for at least 500 words of copy. Although there is no exact formula for how many words a page should have, Google seems to prefer when a page has a lot of relevant and helpful content surrounding your topic.
• Copy must be unique to each page, not duplicated from other pages on your site, and should directly address your visitors’ search queries
• Push the keyword closer to the beginning of the title, but ONLY if it sounds natural

Internal Linking

Linking internally to other pages on your website is useful to visitors and it is also useful to search engines. Here’s an internal link to another blog post on our site that talks more about internal linking. Very meta.
When adding internal links, make sure to have relevant anchor text. Anchor text is the clickable text in a hyperlink (usually indicated by blue font color and underline). To optimize your anchor text, make sure the selected word or phrase is relevant to the page you’re linking to.
On-page SEO ensures that your site can be read by both potential customers and search engine robots. With good on-page SEO, search engines can easily index your web pages, understand what your site is about, and easily navigate the structure and content of your website, thus ranking your site accordingly. As a best practice, make sure your page content includes 1-3 relevant internal links.

Schema Markup

Adding structured data helps Google better understand the content of a page. Google also uses certain types of structured data to display “rich results” in SERPs such as a recipe with start ratings or step-by-step instructions with an image carousel. These rich results often appear at or near the top of SERPs and generally have higher click-through-rates than normal organic listings.
Google prefers structured data to use schema.org vocabulary, and recommends using JSON-LD format. They also provide a handy Rich Results Test tool to check your code. While there are a variety of ways to add structured data to your website (plugins, Google Tag Manager, etc.), it’s always best to get a professional involved if you’re not comfortable writing code.
Check out Google’s guide to structured data and rich results here.

Social Tags

Having your content shared on social tells Google that people find your content relevant, helpful and reputable. Not every page on your site is share-worthy, but you can optimize the pages that are with these tips:

• Make sure you have Open Graph tags and Twitter Cards installed
• Make it easy with “tweet this quote” links, or social share buttons for each post

Core Web Vitals

User experience is key to a website’s long-term success. In spring 2020, Google unveiled Core Web Vitals, a common set of signals that they deem “critical” to all users’ web experiences.
The purpose of these signals is to quantify the user experience with a website, from page visual stability and load time, to interactive experiences.

• Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) – measures perceived page loading speed and marks the point at which the majority of the page content has downloaded.
• First Input Delay – quantifies user experience of a user’s initial engagement with a page.
• Cumulative Layout Shift – quantifies the amount of layout shift on visible page content and measures visual stability of a page. It’s usually causes by images without dimensions, dynamically injected content, web fonts causing FOIT/FOUT, and other embeds added without dimensions.

To check your LCP score, access your Google PageSpeed Insights and make sure your page hits LCP within 2.5 seconds. To accomplish this, remove unnecessary third-party scripts that may be running, upgrading your web host, activating “lazy loading” so page elements load only as users scroll down the page, and remove any large page elements that may be slowing it down.
One of the simplest ways to optimize cumulative layout shift is to add height and width dimensions to each new site element. Also, avoid adding new content above existing content on a page (unless responding to user interaction).

Page Experience

Google is working on a new ranking signal (likely to come out in 2024) that prioritizes websites with positive user experiences.
The ‘page experience signal’ will consist of Core Web Vitals, plus mobile-friendliness, safe-browsing, HTTPS security, and intrusive interstitial guidelines.
According to Google, “optimizing for these factors makes the web more delightful for users across all web browsers and surfaces, and helps sites evolve towards user expectations on mobile. We believe this will contribute to business success on the web as users grow more engaged and can transact with less friction.”

What is Off-Page SEO?

Off-page SEO focuses on increasing the authority of your domain through the act of getting links from other websites.
A good analogy for how authority works is this. If you have a bathtub with rubber duckies in it (the ducks are your pages), and you start filling the tub with water (links), your duckies are all going to rise to the top.
This is how a site like Wikipedia ranks for pretty much everything under the sun. It has so much water in its bathtub that if you throw another rubber duck in it, it’s going to float to the top without any other effort.
There’s a score called “Domain Authority” that calculates how authoritative your website is compared to other sites. You can type your domain name into here to see your score.

How to optimize for off-page SEO

There are several factors that influence your off-page SEO rankings. While each one is tackled with different strategies, they share an overarching goal of building the trust and reputation of your website from the outside.

1. Inbound links
2. Social media marketing
3. Guest blogging and guest posting
4. Unlinked brand mentions
5. Influencer marketing

The biggest off-page SEO factor is the number and quality of backlinks to your website. Some examples of ways you can build links to your website are:

• Creating awesome content that people want to link to because it is valuable. For example, this super helpful blog post about how to improve about us pages. The post provides a ton of actionable recommendations. People tend to link to content that is useful. Creating an online tool for your industry is another powerful content type. Things like online calculators tend to get the most backlinks out of all content types because they help people accomplish a goal.
• Social media shares of your content that ultimately generate links.
• Outreach e-mails to influencers in your industry that ultimately link to you.
• Guest blogging on sites related to yours. These guest posts will have links back to your site.

While link quantity is still important, content creators and SEO professionals are realizing that link quality is now more important than link quantity. As such, creating shareable content is the first step to earning valuable links and improving your off-page SEO.
How many links do you need for good off-page SEO? That is a tough question and it’s going to be based on the domain authority of your competitors, as you want to make sure you’re playing in the same sandbox.
SEOs also used to believe that buying links was a valid way of link building; however, Google will now penalize you for buying links in an attempt to manipulate page rank. You can also be penalized for submitting your links to link directories whose sole purpose is to increase your domain authority. Again, quality wins out over quantity when it comes to link building.

Is On-Page or Off-Page SEO More Important?

It’s not about choosing between on and off-page SEO, that would be like having to choose between a foundation or a roof for your house. On-page and off-page SEO work together to improve your search engine rankings in a complementary fashion.
However, SEOs generally advise getting your on-page SEO ducks in a row before focusing too much on off-page SEO.
Just like building a house, you want to set the foundation first before building the rest of the house. Like a foundation, you may need to come back and do some maintenance to your on-page SEO from time to time. Balancing the two will help make your website “bilingual” so that your users can understand it as well as the search engine robots- and that’s how your rankings start to improve.

SEO #onpageseo #Offpageseo #Corewebvitals

I really want to confirm my understanding of V speeds is correct so I’ve prepared some answers to the questions provided in Private Pilot: Oral Exam Guide by ASA. Any constructive feedback is welcome and appreciated! Thank you all in advance!
What is the stall speed in the normal landing configuration? In the normal landing configuration of most Cessna 172, Vs0 is at where the bottom of the white arc is on the airspeed indicator. When power on, this is the minimum speed which an aircraft can be flown in a steady straight-and-level motion with its flaps extended and landing gear down if available. Also, this is the power-off stall speed at the maximum landing weight with gear and flaps down.
What is the stall speed in the clean configuration? In the clean configuration of most Cessna 172, Vs1 is at where the bottom of the green arc is on the airspeed indicator. When power on, this is the minimum speed which the aircraft can be flown in a steady straight-and-level motion with its flaps up and landing gear up. Also, this is the power-off stall speed at the maximum takeoff weight with gear and flaps up.
What is the normal approach-to-land speed? For most aircraft, the rule of thumb is the normal approach speed is around 1.3 of Vs0. This is the speed for the final leg of the flight until the aircraft reaches the threshold crossing point.
What is maneuvering speed? Maneuvering speed (VA) is an airspeed limitation determined by the aircraft designer. At speeds exceeding VA, full deflection of any flight control surface can result in damage to the aircraft structure. The maneuvering speed varies under different circumstances due to varying load factors in different phases of flight. The one suggested in AFM/POH is for reference only.
What is red-line speed? The red-line speed is also known as the never-exceed speed (VNE). In no circumstances should an aircraft be flown beyond this speed or serious structural damage might be caused to the aircraft. What is the normal climb-out speed? If the climb gradient does not compromise the safety of the flight, the climb-out speed depends on the PIC’s personal preference. Normally, Vy and Vx are the most common options.
What’s the normal takeoff speed? With correct wind information, density altitude, and gross weight, the normal climb-out speed can be obtained by using the calculation methods provided in the AFM/POH of the aircraft. If there is no such document in your possession before flight, you shouldn’t attempt to make a flight on the aircraft.
What’s the best rate-of-climb speed? When an aircraft travels at the best rate-of-climb speed (Vy), the aircraft gains the most altitude in the shortest period of time. The maximum thrust occurs at Vy. With an increase in altitude, Vy decreases gradually until it meets Vx at the absolute ceiling. In terms of vertical speed, the angle of climb decreases with altitude until it levels off at the absolute ceiling.
What’s the best angle-of-climb speed? When an aircraft travels at the best angle-of-climb speed (Vx), the aircraft gains the most altitude in the shortest horizontal distance. The maximum power occurs at Vx. With an increase in altitude, Vx increases gradually until it meets Vy at the absolute ceiling. In terms of vertical speed, the angle of climb decreases with altitude until it levels off at the absolute ceiling.
What’s the maximum flap extension speed? VFE is the upper speed limit that allows the flaps in the fully extended configuration in flight. For most Cessna 172, it is marked at the top of the white arc on the airspeed indicator.
What’s the maximum gear extension speed? VLE is the upper speed limit that allows the landing gear in the extended position in flight. If an aircraft is equipped with a retractable landing gear, this information can be obtained in the chapter of Performance and Limitations in the AFM/POH and is normally not marked on the airspeed indicator of a Cessna 172.

Hello! I wanna calculate the Gibbs free energy and enthalpy. Do I need to run single point energy or Frequency calculations? I have run opt and have optimized structure. I am gonna use Gaussian software for DFT.
Thank you in advance!

a(b + c) = ab + ac 

I had this sermon yesterday, and it helped me collate my thoughts
For the everyone, Christianity isn't a self-help or a religion that makes you feel good. It is a faith that is real. Sharing the word and preaching may not turn the hearts of others. You need to clarify the non-believers' doubts. However, this is for everyone to read.
Science doesn't argue that God isn't real. God and science aren't enemies. They are in fact allies. God made science and science proves of God is existence.
1) Faith and science are complementary.
John 4:21-24 describes the Samaritan woman asking Jesus which is mountain/temple is the right place to seek God. Jesus instead tells her how God is spiritual. Heaven and hell are not physical locations, but a spiritual location. Therefore you need to connect to God spiritually.
Science cannot prove about why the existence of any number. For example, why is 7 seven and not 1 or 2 or 3? Science only assumes numbers. What about right and wrongs? We know that they are real things. We believe they are factual. But right and wrongs differ from person to person. Science can not scientifically prove what is right and what is wrong. Science is used to prove the physical and not physical world. But science also cannot prove science. For example science cannot prove where an atom is from. People say the Big Bang, but what caused it to happen(explained later)? God is beyond the physical world. So science is to study the physical world, whereas faith is to know the spiritual world.
2) Faith provides a basis for science
Science is to prove a principle of a law. But you need to assume that this law exists in the first place because if it doesn't then results are unattainable. This is a hypothesis. If the experimental results are achieved, then the law is true. However, when the results cannot be obtained, the law either is false or needs further proving. But He separated the dry land from water as can be seen in Psalm 105:5-9. The waters flowed over the mountains, went into valleys and He set a boundary they cannot cross and would never again cover earth. Same again in the story of Noah. And also can be seen in Genesis 1 when the world was just water. Before He made these boundaries, the waters were chaotic and with no order. God gave order.
In fact there are also many many famous scientists out there who used the Bible for their hypothesis and so far they are all correct. Johannes Kepler said that he was was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him. Isaac Newton said he studied the Bible to prove scientific theories. However, what the Bible says that is in the later part before the end, that cannot be proven yet. Other than that, God made the world follow a fixed law. Therefore, Christianity is a faith with science to prove that it is true. This leads to the last point
3) Science provides evidence for the Christian faith
Romans 1:18-20 says ‭" [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". This shows that there is so much evidence of God in the world like science and the miracles done. So how can God not have the rights to condemn someone to hell? It isn't because He remained hidden and they didn't have the opportunity to know Him. They closed their hearts and believe in His works but not Him. They have everything around them to prove God exists, but they do not heed.
Psalm 8:3-4 shows us the magnitude and power of God. But there would be critics who disagree because we jump into conclusions and "assume" it's right. What if there is an argument to prove that it is right and it in fact is God's powers?
Kalama Cosmological Argument states: 1. Everything must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist 3. (if the first 2 points make sense which they do, then) Therefore, the universe must have a cause
The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be used on Islam and Christianity but the Christian God is the true God. In Islam, Muhammad was not the Son of God. He was just a prophet. Neither did he die on the cross for the people to redeem their sins. And I don't need to talk about the kids he married. It's pedophilia and there's no argument that that is very wrong. God is righteous and His son should be righteous as well. We know Jesus was righteous and has never sinned. He bored the cross for our shame and suffered to redeem us. This is the real Son of God. Therefore, only our Christian God is true. The gods of other religions cannot exist because of the Kalam Argument that we can agree is true.
The Big Bang, which people argue that this is how God doesn't exist, was only proven in 2003. Do I believe in the Big Bang? Yes. But you see, science is to study the physical world (definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained). Science only can be used to study the physical world. So the world cannot make the world because the world is science but science cannot make science. In that way, something external must be making the Big Bang happen. So who is this Someone who is external?
Using the Kalam Argument, we can come to a conclusion that 1. The Creator must be extremely powerful to create the world. 2. The Creator has to be non-physical for the world cannot make the world reason. 3. The Creator must be eternal. If not something else would have made Him, thus He would have a beginning. But He cannot have a cause, but cause a cause unless the cause is a person which cannot be true. Complicated to read but try to understand. This sounds like our God that we read about in Gensis! People don't believe because they don't want to, not because they didn't have more than enough evidence to know of God's evidence.
Next, God can use something natural and unnatural to create something. For example, the Red Sea turning red was proven to be because of sediments in the water. And so were the rest of the plague. But the destroyer was a curse (a really bad miracle) and isn't natural. So was Jesus when He went around to heal the sick, blind, deaf, mute, lame, and the possessed. A miracle = cannot be proven by science and totally unrelated to science. Who else can create miracles but by Someone not in the physical world? The consistency in the miracles cannot be a chance. It is the God factor. This can be proven by the Teleolgical Argument.
The Teleolgical Argument says that: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity or chance or design (proven by biology, physics or scientific experiments multiple times and would be explained after this) 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance because unless the universe has a mind then it knows its necessities. And chances are so hard to come by (said later) 3. Thus the universe has to be designed (by God)
Like y=mx+c or other formulas with a constant inside. Gravity, speed of light in vacuum and other laws are also constant.
Now to answer "Can it be by chance?" The answer is 99.999999% no. But let me add that little 0.000001 to prove the God factor. Stephen Hawking said if time at the beginning slowed by 10¹⁰⁰ seconds, the universe would be dead. How can a chance be so accurate? How can there be a chance with such an unspeakable number without a design given? For example, you find an iPhone in the desert and you say its because the winds and weather conditions had assembled and put it together, and Steve Jobs picked it up. So with LOGICAL CONCLUSION, it can be said that there is a Designer to design the universe. According to the first law of thermodynamics, something cannot exist without being created from existing energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and Einstein established that energy and mass (the two essense of existence) are essentially the same. But why does God not need a creator? Because the creator would be greater than God. Then won't we worship that creator instead? But thermodynamics only apply to our world. We often forget that God is of a spiritual world and He is eternal, hence, He doesn't need or have a creator.
In conclusion, science and faith are not compatible. That's too weak a word. Science and faith are complementary. Thus, do not disbelieve in God and only believe in science or vice versa. You need something that you can rely on that doesn't change. A constant. Then you might ask why do we believe in a book? We don't believe in book. It's the faith we believe in that is true. As science cannot prove science, the Bible cannot prove the Bible. But so far all the things the Bible was true, even before science had proven these. And those not of science are miracles or not proven yet. If you cannot debut these reasonings, then it only means God is true and that you should start believing in Him. Psalm 8:1-9 shows the magnitude and power of God. Science isn't something we should use to doubt God but to marvel and appreciate the works, even to the finest detail, of God and His designs. Gensis 1:26 says "[26] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ". We have dominion over the world as through science and the manipulation of science helps us understand God at a deeper scale. Your faith must have a deeper intellectual evidence. What reflects God's words or existence? I know that all He has said and still says has come true and thus will also come true. I know this because I see His works through History, Science etc. Build a faith with facts and knowledge but also with belief. You can further read things to strengthen your faith, like Reasonable Faith(or William Lane Craig, his youtube channel if you hate reading a lot, but since you got this far then maybe you do like reading), or books from Timothy Keller and C.S Lewis.
I would say that faith by knowledge is to accept in God and faith by feelings is to strengthen our love for God. I pray that we would have more brothers and sisters as well who would come to God through all these factors and we would have the brothers and sisters we lost to come back to God. In Jesus's most precious name I pray, Amen.

I had this sermon yesterday, and it helped me collate my thoughts
For the everyone, Christianity isn't a self-help or a religion that makes you feel good. It is a faith that is real. Sharing the word and preaching may not turn the hearts of others. You need to clarify the non-believers' doubts. However, this is for everyone to read.
Science doesn't argue that God isn't real. God and science aren't enemies. They are in fact allies. God made science and science proves of God is existence.
1) Faith and science are complementary.
John 4:21-24 describes the Samaritan woman asking Jesus which is mountain/temple is the right place to seek God. Jesus instead tells her how God is spiritual. Heaven and hell are not physical locations, but a spiritual location. Therefore you need to connect to God spiritually.
Science cannot prove about why the existence of any number. For example, why is 7 seven and not 1 or 2 or 3? Science only assumes numbers. What about right and wrongs? We know that they are real things. We believe they are factual. But right and wrongs differ from person to person. Science can not scientifically prove what is right and what is wrong. Science is used to prove the physical and not physical world. But science also cannot prove science. For example science cannot prove where an atom is from. People say the Big Bang, but what caused it to happen(explained later)? God is beyond the physical world. So science is to study the physical world, whereas faith is to know the spiritual world.
2) Faith provides a basis for science
Science is to prove a principle of a law. But you need to assume that this law exists in the first place because if it doesn't then results are unattainable. This is a hypothesis. If the experimental results are achieved, then the law is true. However, when the results cannot be obtained, the law either is false or needs further proving. But He separated the dry land from water as can be seen in Psalm 105:5-9. The waters flowed over the mountains, went into valleys and He set a boundary they cannot cross and would never again cover earth. Same again in the story of Noah. And also can be seen in Genesis 1 when the world was just water. Before He made these boundaries, the waters were chaotic and with no order. God gave order.
In fact there are also many many famous scientists out there who used the Bible for their hypothesis and so far they are all correct. Johannes Kepler said that he was was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him. Isaac Newton said he studied the Bible to prove scientific theories. However, what the Bible says that is in the later part before the end, that cannot be proven yet. Other than that, God made the world follow a fixed law. Therefore, Christianity is a faith with science to prove that it is true. This leads to the last point
3) Science provides evidence for the Christian faith
Romans 1:18-20 says ‭" [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". This shows that there is so much evidence of God in the world like science and the miracles done. So how can God not have the rights to condemn someone to hell? It isn't because He remained hidden and they didn't have the opportunity to know Him. They closed their hearts and believe in His works but not Him. They have everything around them to prove God exists, but they do not heed.
Psalm 8:3-4 shows us the magnitude and power of God. But there would be critics who disagree because we jump into conclusions and "assume" it's right. What if there is an argument to prove that it is right and it in fact is God's powers?
Kalama Cosmological Argument states: 1. Everything must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist 3. (if the first 2 points make sense which they do, then) Therefore, the universe must have a cause
The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be used on Islam and Christianity but the Christian God is the true God. In Islam, Muhammad was not the Son of God. He was just a prophet. Neither did he die on the cross for the people to redeem their sins. And I don't need to talk about the kids he married. It's pedophilia and there's no argument that that is very wrong. God is righteous and His son should be righteous as well. We know Jesus was righteous and has never sinned. He bored the cross for our shame and suffered to redeem us. This is the real Son of God. Therefore, only our Christian God is true. The gods of other religions cannot exist because of the Kalam Argument that we can agree is true.
The Big Bang, which people argue that this is how God doesn't exist, was only proven in 2003. Do I believe in the Big Bang? Yes. But you see, science is to study the physical world (definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained). Science only can be used to study the physical world. So the world cannot make the world because the world is science but science cannot make science. In that way, something external must be making the Big Bang happen. So who is this Someone who is external?
Using the Kalam Argument, we can come to a conclusion that 1. The Creator must be extremely powerful to create the world. 2. The Creator has to be non-physical for the world cannot make the world reason. 3. The Creator must be eternal. If not something else would have made Him, thus He would have a beginning. But He cannot have a cause, but cause a cause unless the cause is a person which cannot be true. Complicated to read but try to understand. This sounds like our God that we read about in Gensis! People don't believe because they don't want to, not because they didn't have more than enough evidence to know of God's evidence.
Next, God can use something natural and unnatural to create something. For example, the Red Sea turning red was proven to be because of sediments in the water. And so were the rest of the plague. But the destroyer was a curse (a really bad miracle) and isn't natural. So was Jesus when He went around to heal the sick, blind, deaf, mute, lame, and the possessed. A miracle = cannot be proven by science and totally unrelated to science. Who else can create miracles but by Someone not in the physical world? The consistency in the miracles cannot be a chance. It is the God factor. This can be proven by the Teleolgical Argument.
The Teleolgical Argument says that: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity or chance or design (proven by biology, physics or scientific experiments multiple times and would be explained after this) 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance because unless the universe has a mind then it knows its necessities. And chances are so hard to come by (said later) 3. Thus the universe has to be designed (by God)
Like y=mx+c or other formulas with a constant inside. Gravity, speed of light in vacuum and other laws are also constant.
Now to answer "Can it be by chance?" The answer is 99.999999% no. But let me add that little 0.000001 to prove the God factor. Stephen Hawking said if time at the beginning slowed by 10¹⁰⁰ seconds, the universe would be dead. How can a chance be so accurate? How can there be a chance with such an unspeakable number without a design given? For example, you find an iPhone in the desert and you say its because the winds and weather conditions had assembled and put it together, and Steve Jobs picked it up. So with LOGICAL CONCLUSION, it can be said that there is a Designer to design the universe. According to the first law of thermodynamics, something cannot exist without being created from existing energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and Einstein established that energy and mass (the two essense of existence) are essentially the same. But why does God not need a creator? Because the creator would be greater than God. Then won't we worship that creator instead? But thermodynamics only apply to our world. We often forget that God is of a spiritual world and He is eternal, hence, He doesn't need or have a creator.
In conclusion, science and faith are not compatible. That's too weak a word. Science and faith are complementary. Thus, do not disbelieve in God and only believe in science or vice versa. You need something that you can rely on that doesn't change. A constant. Then you might ask why do we believe in a book? We don't believe in book. It's the faith we believe in that is true. As science cannot prove science, the Bible cannot prove the Bible. But so far all the things the Bible was true, even before science had proven these. And those not of science are miracles or not proven yet. If you cannot debut these reasonings, then it only means God is true and that you should start believing in Him. Psalm 8:1-9 shows the magnitude and power of God. Science isn't something we should use to doubt God but to marvel and appreciate the works, even to the finest detail, of God and His designs. Gensis 1:26 says "[26] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ". We have dominion over the world as through science and the manipulation of science helps us understand God at a deeper scale. Your faith must have a deeper intellectual evidence. What reflects God's words or existence? I know that all He has said and still says has come true and thus will also come true. I know this because I see His works through History, Science etc. Build a faith with facts and knowledge but also with belief. You can further read things to strengthen your faith, like Reasonable Faith(or William Lane Craig, his youtube channel if you hate reading a lot, but since you got this far then maybe you do like reading), or books from Timothy Keller and C.S Lewis.
I would say that faith by knowledge is to accept in God and faith by feelings is to strengthen our love for God. I pray that we would have more brothers and sisters as well who would come to God through all these factors and we would have the brothers and sisters we lost to come back to God. In Jesus's most precious name I pray, Amen.

I had this sermon yesterday, it helped me collate my thoughts
For the everyone, Christianity isn't a self-help or a religion that makes you feel good. It is a faith that is real. Sharing the word and preaching may not turn the hearts of others. You need to clarify the non-believers' doubts. However, this is for everyone to read.
Science doesn't argue that God isn't real. God and science aren't enemies. They are in fact allies. God made science and science proves of God is existence.
1) Faith and science are complementary.
John 4:21-24 describes the Samaritan woman asking Jesus which is mountain/temple is the right place to seek God. Jesus instead tells her how God is spiritual. Heaven and hell are not physical locations, but a spiritual location. Therefore you need to connect to God spiritually.
Science cannot prove about why the existence of any number. For example, why is 7 seven and not 1 or 2 or 3? Science only assumes numbers. What about right and wrongs? We know that they are real things. We believe they are factual. But right and wrongs differ from person to person. Science can not scientifically prove what is right and what is wrong. Science is used to prove the physical and not physical world. But science also cannot prove science. For example science cannot prove where an atom is from. People say the Big Bang, but what caused it to happen(explained later)? God is beyond the physical world. So science is to study the physical world, whereas faith is to know the spiritual world.
2) Faith provides a basis for science
Science is to prove a principle of a law. But you need to assume that this law exists in the first place because if it doesn't then results are unattainable. This is a hypothesis. If the experimental results are achieved, then the law is true. However, when the results cannot be obtained, the law either is false or needs further proving. But He separated the dry land from water as can be seen in Psalm 105:5-9. The waters flowed over the mountains, went into valleys and He set a boundary they cannot cross and would never again cover earth. Same again in the story of Noah. And also can be seen in Genesis 1 when the world was just water. Before He made these boundaries, the waters were chaotic and with no order. God gave order.
In fact there are also many many famous scientists out there who used the Bible for their hypothesis and so far they are all correct. Johannes Kepler said that he was was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him. Isaac Newton said he studied the Bible to prove scientific theories. However, what the Bible says that is in the later part before the end, that cannot be proven yet. Other than that, God made the world follow a fixed law. Therefore, Christianity is a faith with science to prove that it is true. This leads to the last point
3) Science provides evidence for the Christian faith
Romans 1:18-20 says ‭" [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". This shows that there is so much evidence of God in the world like science and the miracles done. So how can God not have the rights to condemn someone to hell? It isn't because He remained hidden and they didn't have the opportunity to know Him. They closed their hearts and believe in His works but not Him. They have everything around them to prove God exists, but they do not heed.
Psalm 8:3-4 shows us the magnitude and power of God. But there would be critics who disagree because we jump into conclusions and "assume" it's right. What if there is an argument to prove that it is right and it in fact is God's powers?
Kalama Cosmological Argument states: 1. Everything must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist 3. (if the first 2 points make sense which they do, then) Therefore, the universe must have a cause
The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be used on Islam and Christianity but the Christian God is the true God. In Islam, Muhammad was not the Son of God. He was just a prophet. Neither did he die on the cross for the people to redeem their sins. And I don't need to talk about the kids he married. It's pedophilia and there's no argument that that is very wrong. God is righteous and His son should be righteous as well. We know Jesus was righteous and has never sinned. He bored the cross for our shame and suffered to redeem us. This is the real Son of God. Therefore, only our Christian God is true. The gods of other religions cannot exist because of the Kalam Argument that we can agree is true.
The Big Bang, which people argue that this is how God doesn't exist, was only proven in 2003. Do I believe in the Big Bang? Yes. But you see, science is to study the physical world (definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained). Science only can be used to study the physical world. So the world cannot make the world because the world is science but science cannot make science. In that way, something external must be making the Big Bang happen. So who is this Someone who is external?
Using the Kalam Argument, we can come to a conclusion that 1. The Creator must be extremely powerful to create the world. 2. The Creator has to be non-physical for the world cannot make the world reason. 3. The Creator must be eternal. If not something else would have made Him, thus He would have a beginning. But He cannot have a cause, but cause a cause unless the cause is a person which cannot be true. Complicated to read but try to understand. This sounds like our God that we read about in Gensis! People don't believe because they don't want to, not because they didn't have more than enough evidence to know of God's evidence.
Next, God can use something natural and unnatural to create something. For example, the Red Sea turning red was proven to be because of sediments in the water. And so were the rest of the plague. But the destroyer was a curse (a really bad miracle) and isn't natural. So was Jesus when He went around to heal the sick, blind, deaf, mute, lame, and the possessed. A miracle = cannot be proven by science and totally unrelated to science. Who else can create miracles but by Someone not in the physical world? The consistency in the miracles cannot be a chance. It is the God factor. This can be proven by the Teleolgical Argument.
The Teleolgical Argument says that: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity or chance or design (proven by biology, physics or scientific experiments multiple times and would be explained after this) 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance because unless the universe has a mind then it knows its necessities. And chances are so hard to come by (said later) 3. Thus the universe has to be designed (by God)
Like y=mx+c or other formulas with a constant inside. Gravity, speed of light in vacuum and other laws are also constant.
Now to answer "Can it be by chance?" The answer is 99.999999% no. But let me add that little 0.000001 to prove the God factor. Stephen Hawking said if time at the beginning slowed by 10¹⁰⁰ seconds, the universe would be dead. How can a chance be so accurate? How can there be a chance with such an unspeakable number without a design given? For example, you find an iPhone in the desert and you say its because the winds and weather conditions had assembled and put it together, and Steve Jobs picked it up. So with LOGICAL CONCLUSION, it can be said that there is a Designer to design the universe. According to the first law of thermodynamics, something cannot exist without being created from existing energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and Einstein established that energy and mass (the two essense of existence) are essentially the same. But why does God not need a creator? Because the creator would be greater than God. Then won't we worship that creator instead? But thermodynamics only apply to our world. We often forget that God is of a spiritual world and He is eternal, hence, He doesn't need or have a creator.
In conclusion, science and faith are not compatible. That's too weak a word. Science and faith are complementary. Thus, do not disbelieve in God and only believe in science or vice versa. You need something that you can rely on that doesn't change. A constant. Then you might ask why do we believe in a book? We don't believe in book. It's the faith we believe in that is true. As science cannot prove science, the Bible cannot prove the Bible. But so far all the things the Bible was true, even before science had proven these. And those not of science are miracles or not proven yet. If you cannot debut these reasonings, then it only means God is true and that you should start believing in Him. Psalm 8:1-9 shows the magnitude and power of God. Science isn't something we should use to doubt God but to marvel and appreciate the works, even to the finest detail, of God and His designs. Gensis 1:26 says "[26] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ". We have dominion over the world as through science and the manipulation of science helps us understand God at a deeper scale. Your faith must have a deeper intellectual evidence. What reflects God's words or existence? I know that all He has said and still says has come true and thus will also come true. I know this because I see His works through History, Science etc. Build a faith with facts and knowledge but also with belief. You can further read things to strengthen your faith, like Reasonable Faith(or William Lane Craig, his youtube channel if you hate reading a lot, but since you got this far then maybe you do like reading), or books from Timothy Keller and C.S Lewis.
I would say that faith by knowledge is to accept in God and faith by feelings is to strengthen our love for God. I pray that we would have more brothers and sisters as well who would come to God through all these factors and we would have the brothers and sisters we lost to come back to God. In Jesus's most precious name I pray, Amen.

I've been working on creating a synthetic dataset, but am having trouble with the prompt creation. I can ensure Llama-3-8B will follow my format numbering scheme in OpenWebUI by editing the beginning of the response message and then generating, but I'm having trouble recreating this using the api. If you look at my code you can see I tried to use the template given in the modelfile to include the beginning of the response in my prompt, but this has not worked. Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong/if there is a better way to achieve controlling what the response starts with using the ollama api?
This is the template from the modelfile:
TEMPLATE "{{ if .System }}system
{{ .System }}{{ end }}{{ if .Prompt }}user
{{ .Prompt }}{{ end }}assistant
{{ .Response }}"

import ollama import os import time prompts_generate = 128000 # Calculate number of loops required to generate the prompts num_loops = int(prompts_generate / 100) # Parameters for the model model_name = "llama3:8b-instruct-q8_0" instruction = "Write out a list of 100 prompts that can be used for fine tuning a language model. Vary the content and structure of each prompt to ensure thorough testing. {{ .Prompt }}{{ end }}Sure:\n1." options = { "num_ctx": 2048, "repeat_last_n": 64, "repeat_penalty": 1.1, "temperature": 0.8, "tfs_z": 1, "top_k": 40, "top_p": 0.9, "num_predict": -1 # Generate until the model stops } # Output directory output_dir = "Data" os.makedirs(output_dir, exist_ok=True) # Check existing files in the directory to determine where to resume existing_files = sorted([f for f in os.listdir(output_dir) if f.startswith("prompt-") and f.endswith(".txt")]) if existing_files: last_file = existing_files[-1] start_num = int(last_file.split('-')[1].split('.')[0]) else: start_num = 0 # Start time start_time = time.time() i = start_num // 100 + 1 while i <= num_loops: response = ollama.generate( model=model_name, prompt=instruction, options=options, stream=False, ) reply = response['response'] print ("Instruction: ", instruction) print("Reply: ", reply) # Save the response to a file with loop number in the name file_name = os.path.join(output_dir, f"prompt-{i * 100}.txt") with open(file_name, "w") as file: file.write(reply) # Read the content of the file and remove empty lines with open(file_name, "r") as file: lines = file.readlines() lines = [line.strip() for line in lines if line.strip()] # Rewrite the cleaned content back to the file with open(file_name, "w") as file: file.write('\n'.join(lines)) # Check if the file has 100 prompts if lines and lines[-1].startswith("100."): i += 1 # Move to the next file if the current file is valid else: os.remove(file_name) # Delete the invalid file and retry # End time end_time = time.time() # Calculate and print the total time taken total_time = end_time - start_time print(f"Generated {prompts_generate} prompts and saved them in the '{output_dir}' directory.") print(f"Total time taken: {total_time:.2f} seconds.") 

Hi, all.
I have a question regarding the specification of a mixed effects model in R. I have a model formulated as such:
Y = a_it + b1_i * X + b2_i * G + b3 * D
a = fixed effect intercep with indices i and t b1 = random effect with indices i b2 = random effect with indices i b3 = control variables
Do I need to incorporate the random effects, also as an fixed effect?
When I tried to calculate R2. I've getting an error as such: "Random slopes not present as fixed effects. This artificially inflates the conditional random effect variances. Solution: Respecify fixed structure!"
I'm not sure if it's appropriate to do this.
I have the structural code in R: model <- lmer(Y ~ i * t + d1 + d2 + d3 + (0 + X + G i), data = df)
Thanks in advanced!

Hey everyone,
I've recently stumbled upon some mind-blowing information that has led me to believe that the Louisiana Purchase was orchestrated by aliens. Yep, you read that right—extraterrestrials may have played a crucial role in one of the most significant land deals in history. And guess what? All the evidence is being hidden at Area 51.
Here's what I found:

1. Napoleon's Sudden Change of Heart: Historians have long wondered why Napoleon suddenly decided to sell the Louisiana Territory for such a low price. What if he wasn't acting alone? There are rumors that Napoleon had a mysterious encounter before the sale. Some sources suggest he was visited by strange, otherworldly beings who convinced him to make the deal.
2. Lewis and Clark's Expedition: The famous expedition has always been shrouded in mystery. Recently declassified documents hint at the possibility that Lewis and Clark encountered alien technology during their journey. Their detailed maps and sudden ability to navigate the uncharted territory could be attributed to extraterrestrial guidance.
3. Ancient Alien Artifacts: There have been reports of strange artifacts found in the Louisiana Territory, dating back to the early 1800s. These artifacts, made of unknown materials and inscribed with bizarre symbols, are believed to be of alien origin. Conveniently, these items have been confiscated and stored at—you guessed it—Area 51.
4. Thomas Jefferson's Secret Correspondence: Hidden letters between Thomas Jefferson and his close confidants reveal cryptic references to "visitors" and "gifts from the stars." Jefferson's fascination with the cosmos is well-documented, but these letters suggest he may have had knowledge of extraterrestrial involvement in the purchase.
5. Area 51's Hidden Archives: Insiders claim that Area 51 houses a vast archive of documents and artifacts related to alien activities on Earth. Among these, there are said to be detailed records of alien negotiations that influenced major historical events, including the Louisiana Purchase. Why else would the government go to such lengths to keep Area 51 so heavily guarded and secretive?

Why isn't this common knowledge? The government doesn't want us to know that aliens have been meddling in human affairs for centuries. They fear mass hysteria, loss of control, and the collapse of societal structures. By keeping the truth hidden, they maintain their power and keep us in the dark.
It's time we demand transparency. The truth is out there, and it's being kept from us. We need to uncover the secrets hidden at Area 51 and reveal the true history of the Louisiana Purchase and other pivotal events in our past.
Stay curious, stay skeptical, and don't let the truth be buried!
👽🔍 #AlienConspiracy #LouisianaPurchase #Area51 #HiddenHistory

Sometimes I have to put comparisons like this up to remind myself how important Starship is....
I compared the cost of building a Sumner-Class Destroyer in space using Starship with the cost of the ISS. I chose the Sumner because there is a similar destroyer, but not of the same class, that is a museum ship about 20 minutes from where I live, and my grandpa was stationed on one in the 1960s. I did this to test out the capabilities of ChatGPT4o and I was impressed.
Here is what it said:
To estimate how many launches of SpaceX's Starship would be needed to build a Sumner-Class Destroyer in space and the total cost of the project, we'll need to consider the following key factors:

Step 1: Weight of the Sumner-Class Destroyer

A Sumner-Class Destroyer (e.g., the USS Allen M. Sumner) has a full load displacement of about 2,200 tons (2,200,000 kg).

Step 2: Payload Capacity of Starship

SpaceX's Starship, when fully operational, is expected to have a payload capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO) of about 100 tons (100,000 kg) per launch.

Step 3: Calculating the Number of Launches

To transport the full weight of a Sumner-Class Destroyer to space:
\[ \text{Number of launches} = \frac{\text{Total weight}}{\text{Payload per launch}} = \frac{2,200,000 \text{ kg}}{100,000 \text{ kg per launch}} = 22 \text{ launches} \]

Step 4: Estimated Cost per Launch

Elon Musk has stated that the cost per Starship launch could be as low as $2 million in the long term. However, a more conservative estimate considering current technological and operational factors might be around $10 million per launch.

Step 5: Calculating Total Cost

Using the more conservative estimate of $10 million per launch:
\[ \text{Total cost} = \text{Number of launches} \times \text{Cost per launch} = 22 \times 10 \text{ million USD} = 220 \text{ million USD} \]

Additional Considerations

• **Assembly in Space**: The actual process of assembling a large, complex ship like a Sumner-Class Destroyer in space would require significant additional resources and infrastructure.
  
• **Material Efficiency**: The destroyer would not be built exactly as it would be on Earth due to different environmental constraints, which might reduce the overall weight.
  
• **Human and Robotic Labor**: The cost and logistics of human or robotic labor to assemble the ship in space would also add to the total project cost.
  
• **Engineering and Support Systems**: Development of specialized space-compatible systems and structures could further increase costs.
  

Conclusion

Assuming ideal conditions and no additional complexities, it would take approximately 22 launches of SpaceX's Starship to transport the equivalent weight of a Sumner-Class Destroyer to space. The estimated cost for these launches would be around $220 million. However, the overall project cost, including assembly and additional infrastructure, would be significantly higher.
(Compare this to the cost of building the International Space Station, and explain why this is such a game changer when it comes to developing a space-based civilization.)

Comparison to the International Space Station (ISS)

Cost and Launches of the ISS

1. **Cost**: The International Space Station (ISS) has an estimated total cost of around $150 billion over its lifetime. This includes development, construction, and ongoing operational expenses.
   
2. **Launches**: Constructing the ISS required more than 30 Space Shuttle missions and numerous launches from international partners (Russia, Europe, Japan).
   

Weight and Construction

• **Weight**: The ISS has a mass of about 420,000 kg (420 tons).
  
• **Launches**: Each Space Shuttle launch could carry a maximum payload of around 24,400 kg (24.4 tons), requiring multiple missions to assemble in space.
  

Comparison with Building a Sumner-Class Destroyer Using Starship

1. **Cost**:

• **ISS**: $150 billion.
  
• **Sumner-Class Destroyer** (in space using Starship): Approximately $220 million for launches, with additional costs for assembly and infrastructure likely bringing the total to several billion dollars.
  

1. **Launch Efficiency**:

• **Space Shuttle**: Each launch had a limited payload capacity (24.4 tons) and a cost of about $450 million per launch.
  
• **Starship**: Each launch can carry up to 100 tons at an estimated cost of $10 million per launch.
  

Game Changer for Space-Based Civilization

Cost Reduction

• **Lower Launch Costs**: The drastically reduced cost per kilogram to orbit (from ~$18,400/kg with the Space Shuttle to ~$100/kg with Starship) makes large-scale construction projects in space far more feasible and affordable.

Increased Payload Capacity

• **Higher Payload Capacity**: Starship’s capacity of 100 tons per launch compared to the Space Shuttle’s 24.4 tons means fewer launches are required for similar projects, reducing complexity and increasing efficiency.

Scalability

• **Massive Projects**: The ability to launch heavier and more substantial payloads opens up possibilities for constructing larger and more complex structures in space, including habitats, research stations, and industrial facilities.

Rapid Development

• **Frequent Launches**: With Starship’s potential for rapid turnaround and frequent launches, space projects can progress faster, reducing the time from concept to completion.

Impact on Space-Based Civilization

Infrastructure Development

• **Space Habitats**: Building space habitats and colonies becomes more practical and less costly, accelerating human settlement in space.
  
• **Space Industry**: Manufacturing and industrial activities in space could flourish due to reduced costs and increased material transport efficiency.
  

Scientific Advancement

• **Research Stations**: More affordable construction of research facilities in space could boost scientific discoveries and innovations.
  
• **Interplanetary Missions**: Lower costs and higher payload capacities enhance the feasibility of missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond, paving the way for a multi-planetary civilization.
  

Conclusion

The dramatic reduction in launch costs and increased payload capacity provided by SpaceX's Starship represents a transformative shift in space development. It lowers financial barriers and logistical challenges, enabling more ambitious projects and rapid expansion into space. This transition from high-cost, low-frequency missions to affordable, frequent launches is a crucial step towards establishing a sustainable and thriving space-based civilization.
Considering the implications like this side by side REALLY REALLY shows that the Artemis Program is being WAY WAY WAY too conservative in what it wants to do. I know that some people say that there is no way we will have a million person city on Mars by 2050 but looking at it like this really puts things into perspective - I think it is totally possible.

Hi, all.
I have a question regarding the specification of a mixed effects model in R. I have a model formulated as such:
Y = a_it + b1_i * X + b2_i * G + b3 * D
a = fixed effect intercep with indices i and t b1 = random effect with indices i b2 = random effect with indices i b3 = control variables
Do I need to incorporate the random effects, also as an fixed effect?
When I tried to calculate R2. I've getting an error as such: "Random slopes not present as fixed effects. This artificially inflates the conditional random effect variances. Solution: Respecify fixed structure!"
I'm not sure if it's appropriate to do this.
I have the structural code in R: model <- lmer(Y ~ i * t + d1 + d2 + d3 + (0 + X + G i), data = df)
Thanks in advanced!

Hi, all.
I have a question regarding the specification of a mixed effects model in R. I have a model formulated as such:
Y = a_it + b1_i * X + b2_i * G + b3 * D
a = fixed effect intercep with indices i and t b1 = random effect with indices i b2 = random effect with indices i b3 = control variables
Do I need to incorporate the random effects, also as an fixed effect?
When I tried to calculate R2. I've getting an error as such: "Random slopes not present as fixed effects. This artificially inflates the conditional random effect variances. Solution: Respecify fixed structure!"
I'm not sure if it's appropriate to do this.
I have the structural code in R: model <- lmer(Y ~ i * t + d1 + d2 + d3 + (0 + X + G i), data = df)
Thanks in advanced!

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in quantum mechanics, that when two or more particles are entangled, their properties can no longer be described individually. Instead, they can be only described as an entity with wavefunction. Derived from this simultaneity, nonlocality is a principle which is used to explain the simultaneity of quantum entanglement across spacetime. It means that objects may affect simultaneous event that is not adjacent to them. Action at distance is hence possible. In this process, the information may still be unable to be transmitted faster than speed of light, as quantum entangled pair would disentangle once it is observed and the information observed would be random. Nonetheless, nonlocality might still “cannot be made to peacefully coexist with special relativity”. For relativity theory, spacetime is a key concept. It is the four-dimensional entity that consists of three space dimensions and the dimension of time. Every particle’s position is presented by four parameters, three for space and one of time. The relativity theory and quantum mechanics are two fundamental theories that shape our current understanding of the physical world, yet they are not perfectly consistent. I've found some viable connections between spacetime and quantum entanglement, a field that has been studied in the last few decades, when some potential structures are found that can be used to describe the relation. Studies suggest that quantum entanglement is not the mere connection between different particles, but the connection of the degree of freedom of the spacetime where they are located. What is more, the connection between spacetime and quantum entanglement can draw a larger picture: a universe which is fabricated by entangled spacetimes. The concept of quantum entanglement originates from the famous EPR paradox, come up by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. A quantum entangled particle pair can be only described with the same wave function, so their behaviors are interrelated. As one particle spins up, the other must be down. This process is immediate, so the information must be traveling with speed, greater than the speed of light if the behaviors of particles are at random. This odd property makes Einstein and the other two physicists draw the conclusion that there must be some hidden variables controlling their performance. Their conclusion is rooted in a simple idea: principle of locality. Principle of locality is that an object can only pass the influence of forces continuously through either field or space. This principle, nonetheless, had been disproved by the test of Bell’s inequality. If that energy/matter and information cannot be transmitted faster than speed of light is still an axiom in physics, the principle of locality must not be true. Bell’s inequality is the formula based on the assumption of hidden variable. Hidden variable means that the collapse of wavefunction does not have an action at distance among the entangled particles. Every behavior of the paired particles is predicted by hidden variables, so uncertainty is not required in this theory. Therefore, the transmission of information is local since there is no action at distance among entangled pairs. Bell’s inequality is a property predicted by this theory. Bell’s inequality predicts behavior of entangled particles different from that of quantum mechanics based on Copenhagen’s interpretation. According to the experimental examination of this inequality, this inequality is clearly violated. Therefore, nonlocality of quantum entanglement should be the only possible explanation that preserve the principle of constancy of light speed.
Many works had been done in discovering the relation between the frame of reference and quantum entanglement. It has been verified with experiments that Bell’s inequality is still violated under Lorentz Boost. This finding suggests that the correlations between entangled particles are preserve in all frames, even in those relativistic ones. Similar studies had been performed by other scholars, who mainly studied the cases of quantum entanglement between relativistic massive particles. This finding shows that degree of violation of Bell’s inequality is dependent on the relative velocity of the particle measured with respect to the laboratory, yet particle pairs do not disentangle as they reach a certain relative speed. Therefore, the finding further confirms conservation of nonlocality in all frame of reference. Whether quantum entanglement and spacetime are related is a profound question. A study made by Mark Van Raamsdonk finds that “emergence of classically connected spacetimes is intimately related to the quantum entanglement of degrees of freedom in a non-perturbative description of quantum gravity”. The disentanglement of two separate spacetime is similar to that of two entangled particles. In fact, if two regions of spacetime is disentangled, they “pull apart” from each other. Built on the non-perturbative description of quantum gravity, this finding can be applied to spacetime of the physical world. Raamsdonk extended the discussion to some examples of gauge theory/gravity duality. He found out that “in at least some cases, classically connected spacetimes may be understood as particular quantum superpositions of disconnected spacetimes”. As distance between two regions of spacetime increases, the entanglement of degree of freedom degreases. Disentanglement of two separated regions of spacetime should be considered no longer connected. These two studies rely on the non-perturbative description of quantum gravity and the gauge theory/gravity duality. Particularly, they rely on some particular cases of gauge theory/gravity duality. Therefore, if gauge theory’s prediction in this field is proved invalid, the results would also collapse. However, since the gauge theory well predict the behavior of quantum world, these examples might also be true. Yet they need further experimental verification. The fact that quantum entanglement might form spacetime is an exciting finding. Quantum entanglement has long been considered irrelevant to relativistic theory. Typically, researchers did not treat entanglement, namely nonlocality, relevant to spacetime. These studies suggest a deep connection between two seemingly distinct physical entity, that classically continuous spacetime can be described as an extended object of quantum entanglement.
Instead of forming spacetime from quantum entanglement, there are other studies suggest that quantum entanglement can be described in terms of spacetime connection. The first study derives from the coincidence of the maximum “probability of quantum entanglement of two particles” of 9.0169945% and “exactly the golden mean ϕ to the power of five ( )”. This theory is somewhat surprising, yet it is supported with valid calculation. Its conclusion shows that quantum entanglement can be a result of complex spacetime geometry. The emergence of quantum entanglement might not solely be explained in term of quantum mechanics, which ignores the effect of spacetime geometry. In addition, it might also be intrinsically linked to the structure of spacetime. Despite its exciting result, it is based on calculation of the coincidence of probability of quantum entanglement and golden mean to the fifth power. Whether it is a superficial coincidence or profound relation would greatly influence its validity. Besides, experimental verification is still needed. If the result is proven physical meaningless, it is also not a valid theory. Nonetheless, this study still provides some insights about how to describe quantum entanglement in terms of spacetime geometry. The relation between quantum entanglement and spacetime has a more prominent meaning: quantum entangled pair can be seen as a non-traversable wormhole. Researchers “construct holographic dual of two colored quasiparticles in maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory entangled in a color singlet Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) pair”. According to their research, entanglement is “encoded in a geometry of a non-traversable wormhole”. This finding is significant because it provides connection between the strangest predictions of quantum mechanics and that of relativistic theory. Wormhole is no less strange than quantum entanglement, yet they are the result of distinct mechanism. Worm hole is the result of severe torsion of spacetime, while quantum entanglement is relation between particle pairs. Combining these two phenomena is helpful to understand the properties of spacetime. Combined together, these studies suggest a larger picture of physics study: a spacetime intrinsically linked by entanglement. From the point of view of quantum entanglement, it is the entanglement between different regions that fabricates the classic continuous spacetime. From the stance of spacetime, it is the intrinsic property of the entity itself that embodies the emergence of entanglement. A larger picture is implied by the entangled spacetime. According to the study made by Chunjun Cao, Sean M. Carroll, and Spyridon Michalakis, the spacetime itself seems to self-emerge from the entanglement. They “examined how space can emerge from an abstract quantum state in Hilbert space, and how something like Einstein’s equation is a natural consequence of this bulk emergent gravity program”. What is more, the model allows classical wormhole to emerge as a result, which deepens the relation between quantum entanglement and spacetime, since this is an unexpected feature without putting the two entities together. “Lengths and other geometric quantities are determined by entanglement”, and “gravity appears to arise from quantum mechanics in a natural way”. Self-emergence of spacetime from quantum mechanics implies a new relation between gravity and quantum mechanics. The study combined and rebuilt the previous studies from a very solid basis, so that no semiclassical backgrounds like classical may have influenced the result. The rebuilt makes the result more convincing, in that it excluded assumptions of the previous studies that might be mistaken from this one. Starting from pure quantum state instead of “quantizing classical degree of freedom”, so the construction of spacetime from quantum entanglement would not be the result of those potentially mistaken assumptions. The self-emergence of spacetime from quantum entanglement is helpful in constructing a quantum gravity theory. This is a crucial insight to our understanding of gravity, the last uncovered fundamental force in Yang-Mills theory. Described as the result of spacetime geometry in relativity theory, gravity cannot be described like other forces. For relativity theory, gravity is not a force at all, but an illusion produced by the movement of objects and the distorted geodesic of spacetime near a massive object. If the spacetime geometry can be successfully described in quantum scale, the gravity may be described in terms of quantum mechanics. With the interesting connection that is newly found, this long existing gap may be filled out. The spacetime can self-emerge from quantum entanglement, which can be explained by spacetime geometry. This shows that spacetime is closely linked by some rules of quantum mechanics. In addition, the fact that quantum entanglement might be understood as wormhole or the result of spacetime geometry also suggests quantum entanglement itself is closely related to the mechanics of spacetime, a field which can be effectively explained by relativity theory. The studies of relations between quantum entanglement and spacetime are still restrained to hypotheses, nonetheless, meaning these results might still be invalidated by experimental verification. Despite these risks, studies in this field are still noteworthy because of the provision it brings. Besides, the failure of some predictions might show false understanding of some ideas in physics, so it can also lead to a new field of research even if these results are proven incompletely correct. From the studies of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, the relation between quantum entanglement and the spacetime seems intrinsic. Derived from the known example of gauge theory/gravity duality, the continuous spacetime can be fabricated by quantum superpositions of disconnected spacetimes. This implies a potentially crucial role of quantum entanglement in spacetime. In addition, the study of space and Hilbert space shows that the quantum state naturally produces space. On the contrary, Cantorian spacetime geometry can explain quantum entanglement in context of spacetime geometry. Moreover, the study of wormhole shows that quantum entanglement can be considered as non-traversable wormhole. In conclusion, all these studies imply that quantum entanglement and space can be mutually explained. These studies lack of direct evidence from experiment. Some further researches on the field might solve this problem, so the theory can make valid predictions.