[Red Badger]

FYI Ping!...............

[maro]

But the science is settled!

[NorthMountain]

Want to make a mathematician laugh? Offer him a "proof by example".

This "Bredt Rule" appears to have been essentially a "proof by example". For non-mathematicians out there: Proof by example looks sort of like this: "Every example of 'X' I can find has 'Y' characteristic, therefore all 'X' has 'Y' characteristic". It's not a proof at all; it's sort of an example of "incredulity" as a logical fallacy.

[DannyTN]

If elected, I promise to rid the atmosphere of all double carbon dioxide.

[SunkenCiv]

• Can Ozempic Treat Kidney Damage? Groundbreaking Study Uncovers Powerful New Benefits [11/01/2024]

[Larry Lucido]

Double carbon? Great. Now we’re going to have double global warming.

[SteveH]

trump’s fault

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

But it’s carbon, carbon needs to be banned or we will have hurricanes.

[Billthedrill]

Nothing in science is possible until it’s observed and you can’t trust it even then.

[Paladin2]

Think outside the box.......

[Ezekiel]

It destroys creativity when we have rules that supposedly can’t be overcome.

[ifinnegan]

Naturally occurring anti-Bredt bonds have been known for a long time.

From a good 2014 review:

“ Lastly, we feel that Julius Bredt himself probably would never have imagined his legacy would continue into modernity, especially as he was already aware that violations of the rule were on the horizon. Nevertheless, the occurrence in nature of architecturally beautiful and biologically active candidates, unearthed by the isolation chemist, suggest that the field will continue to develop attracting the attention of biologists and chemists alike.”

Naturally Occurring Anti-Bredt and Bridgehead Olefinic Systems

Jeffrey Y. W. Mak, Rebecca H. Pouwer and Craig M. Williams*

[redangus]

Won’t need it in our new carbon free world the left is pushing.

[AFreeBird]

But, but, but; Carbon is bad. Every says so, I even heard it on the TeeVee. Oh the Hugh Manatee.