Datasets:
exponent
/
tinyc4

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
9
94.9k
The course introduces an overview of Types of structures and supports. Types of loads. Condition of static stability calculations of reactions. Definition of internal forces (normal force, shear forces, bending moments and twisting moments). internal forces in the horizontal beams (cantilevers, simple beams, overhanging beams, Compound beams), Frames and Trusses.
• El-Dakkakhni, “Theory of Structures, Dar Al-Maaref, Cairo, 2000.
• W. F. Chen and E. M. Lui, \”Handbook of Structural Engineering,\” 2nd Ed, CRC Press, 2005.
Fill a very large pot three-quarters full with water and bring to a boil. Add the collard greens to the water and make sure they are all well submerged. Return the water to a boil and simmer until the greens are tender and bright green, 10 to 15 minutes. Drain the greens and run under cold water to stop the cooking. Drain the greens well, squeezing out excess water with your hands or by placing in a kitchen towel and squeezing. Chop the greens finely and set aside.
Melt the butter in a skillet or Dutch oven large enough to hold all of the greens. Add the garlic and shallots and cook over medium heat until softened but not browned, 4 to 6 minutes. Add the cream and bring to a simmer, stirring occasionally. Cook until reduced by half, about 25 minutes - watch carefully as the cream can quickly boil over! Add the greens and toss until warmed through. Season generously with nutmeg, salt and pepper. Add to a serving dish and sprinkle with the Parmesan.
Hi, I am looking for some suggestions on my final decision.
I have received my PhD offers in Astronomy/Astrophysics at SIfA, the University of Sydney and at IfA, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
The stipend amount is not a concern, Hawaii gives 30+k(TA/RA dependent) while Sydney gives 26k(RTP scholarship as personal funding, no TA required). Hawaii is more expensive in living though.
I have visited both schools in the past and I am fine with living in both places. Of course, I have certain pro-life reasons to prefer Sydney: I am Australian, my partner will be doing her PhD in Astronomical instrumentation at Sydney, we can complete our PhD in 3-4 years(no classes or qualifiers) etc. I am astronomy majored and I have seriously no interest in taking more classes, Hawaii can provide quite the same which it has its MS very focused in doing research projects and simple classes.
My partner she would love to have me come to Sydney but she is okay with Hawaii if it is important for my career.
So cutting out all non-academic reasons, which school would be relatively better in academic development? Hawaii has all the best optical telescopes and a very strong faculty in exoplanets and galaxies(Brent Tully, if you know the Tully-Fisher relation), while the PhD project I have submitted for Sydney focuses on using radio astronomy instruments which is very strong in Australia. Will choosing Sydney be a terrible choice for my career?
If you don't know Sydney, could anyone point out just how Hawaii PhD education really ranks in the US, apart from all the telescopes advantage.
I think you have described the main (research) advantages of the two schools very well. I am studying exoplanets and I was originally going to consider the IfA at Hawaii for a postdoc but then everyone I would have wanted to work with left Hawaii. However, they are hiring *two* new faculty members right now, probably at least one exoplanets person, so I think it will be a lively place for those interested in exoplanets once again.
I think the stipend would be a concern at Hawaii though. People there say that 30k isn't really enough. I have heard that some of the reasons the *faculty* members are leaving is because they aren't paid enough to be able to afford a home etc. (But this is just what I've heard). Travelling from Hawaii to other places is also very expensive and requires long journeys.
But since you are asking about academic reasons here, I think the biggest question you would have to answer (don't have to say it here if you don't want to) is what you want to study and where you want to work in the future.
If you are interested in a North American postdoc/future academic position, then I think you are better off in Hawaii, where you will be better connected to the North American astronomical community. In addition, the short PhD program in Australia (and other places) will put you at a major disadvantage for North American academic jobs compared to US graduates. Not having classes in your PhD program will put you at a disadvantage as well, unless you have a Masters in Australia. The US has a weird (to me, since I'm Canadian) system! However, if Australia is like Canada where you get a MSc before a PhD, then you would probably be okay. The point is that you need to have some solid background beyond the undergraduate level in Astronomy and having breadth would be really important for long term job success in North America.
In addition, if you are interested in exoplanets, optical/IR observational astronomy, or a career in something like a telescope operator, support astronomer, etc. then you would be much better off at Hawaii.
On the other hand, if you're not interested in leaving Australia in the long term, then I am not sure there is much advantage to choosing Hawaii. I would check out the departments you might want to work at in Australia and see where those people got their PhDs or did postdocs. When I think of Australia, I think of radio astronomy and I know tons of North American radio astronomers move to Australia to have the best possible postdoc for their career. So, if you are heading in this direction for your astronomical career, then I think Sydney is a great choice.
You asked about how Hawaii ranks in the US but without the telescopes? I don't think that's a fair question to ask because the resources available to students at a school is probably one of the most important factors in determining how strong/good the school is for the student. In my opinion, the main (academic) reason for an astronomer to choose to go to Hawaii for a PhD is to have the amazing telescope access. I'm not at Hawaii but at another US school with amazing telescope access and it has really helped my career. It has allowed me to do interesting projects because we are the only people with the ability to do what we are doing.
Anyways, my opinion is that you have two good options and I think you would have to think about what your long term goals are in order to make the best decision for yourself. I think both these schools could be the right choice, but they will lead you towards different career paths, so choose wisely!
TakeruK wrote: I think you have described the main (research) advantages of the two schools very well. I am studying exoplanets and I was originally going to consider the IfA at Hawaii for a postdoc but then everyone I would have wanted to work with left Hawaii. However, they are hiring *two* new faculty members right now, probably at least one exoplanets person, so I think it will be a lively place for those interested in exoplanets once again.
Thanks! I suppose you mean 'exoplanet-everyone' as in Andrew Howard? Yeah talking about Hawaii without the telescopes is a little bit unfair.
I don't know how much will classes mean in my resume, because most of my undergrad deparment's junior and senior year classes are taught with the first year and second year masters. So our curriculum pretty much covers most of the graduate class education and its in China so I am pretty much done with all the maths and physics (don't ask me why I ended up taking the whole Chinese college entrance exam, I thought Chinese education was good), and research is pretty much a DIY learning process, my professors suggest that I will probably do fine.
I suppose it is a matter of interest in research then. It sometimes makes me feel narrowing myself up after knowing all those different fields of research, I've done X-ray astronomy and asteroseismology with Kepler (with a mix of exoplanets) in the past few years, and I have no idea what the outcome will be when I graduate. X-ray is kinda in the mess right now and I haven't got a school to do that any more, but my focus was on large catalogue transients so that pretty much fits with Sydney's work except it is in radio.
PS. Sydney's department is great, the Sydney Institute for Astronomy has quite a lot of famous professors such as Joss Bland-Hawthorn, Elain Sadler and Tim Bedding. The detailed program I proposed was to complete a large transient Survey using radio telescopes and novel data mining.
Here is the list of best Neuro Surgeons for Spinal Cord Injuries in Multan Multan. Find complete details, timings, patient reviews and contact information. Book appointment or take video consultation with the listed doctors. Call at Marham helpline: 042-32591427 to schedule your appointment.
I’m trying to get back into Revised to get ready for an upcoming tournament but I’m pretty rusty. What’s the meta on German Openings looking like these days?
I haven’t played Revised in a while (moved on to G40 like most people), but when I did everyone seemed to love dropping a Carrier in the Baltic G1 (to delay the UK Fleet for a bit).
Is this still the norm, or have their been major developments in the last 6 or so years?
hi! noone has answerd, so I would reccomend reading MarineIguanas posts in the thread. I have played a lot of games on BGO and can with confidence say that it is a very good answer.
Hi. Thanks for the reply!
Anyway, I’m going to quote MarineIguana here and ask a few questions with the hopes that either he or you can answer.
This is almost certainly more advice than you are looking for. I’m going to give you the secret for playing near perfectly as Germany. This is tried and tested against the best Revised Axis and Allies players in the world across more than 500 games.
Well that’s different right off the bat. From what I’m read in terms of tournament reports for this other tournament they’ve been giving the Allies a +3 bid for the last two or so years. I think the difference is that online Revised games are played under LHTR, while this tournament is on a stricter time limit (4 hours, 30 minutes which roughly translates to about 5-6 turns depending on how fast people are playing).
That being said if the meta at this tournament is just outright flawed I can probably take advantage of that.
The opening is what I’ve used as my standard for years now, so I’m assuming that any intelligent opponent I face will be using it (it’s the only way to not end up with Germany stacking Ukr. and winning with relative ease iirc).
One rough thing about all of this is that the tournament I’m prepping for is 100% luck (So someone can play perfectly and still lose because RNG). No tech though so that part is fine.
I’m assuming your goal is to maximize your probability of winning against an opponent.
More like holding on to at some group of Egypt/W. Europe/E. Europe/Ukr/Norway for 5 turns while Japan captures an equal or greater amount of Sink/India/Novo/Australia/Hawaii but same difference really.
The most common mistake I see with Germany players is that they think they’re on the offensive. In reality, Germany is a very defensive country that receives allied pressure, while Japan pressures Russia.
I remember when I was a noob and bought 8 tanks/turn as Germany. 2004 was a simpler time for sure.
1. buy almost all infantry. I usually spend 90+% of my germany IPC buying only infantry for the first 15-30 rounds. Eventually, Germany gets to a point where it can stack 3 territories with over 80 units each. This makes it difficult for UK to land and support Russia past round 30.
2. Prefer to attack and stack territories. This means moving a large force of units in an attack, so that the opponent can’t counter. Axis and Allies is inherently a zero-sum game, so you win by accumulating profit through income or battles. Generally, the most profitable battles are: attacking & stacking > trading efficiently > attack & retreat > doing nothing > trading inefficiently.
3. Try to keep Germany strong. It’s okay to make large trades against Russia, but avoid large trades with UK or USA unless it’s for a large profit. The most common way I win against top allies is to accumulate stacks of 100+ infantry as Germany. Japan accumulates as well around Persia. By round 30-40, Japan has 300+ units and eventually forces Allies off Russia.
While all of these points are valid that all aspiring A&A players should memorize, the rules of this tournament don’t give enough time to play out 100+ round slugfests, although the idea sounds pretty fun/masochistic. Reminds me of the Classic games I’d spend weeks playing after I read those papers on Inf stacking back in the day.
Standard buy for germany is 10 inf, 2 tanks.
This was already my build so that makes me happy.
Can you pull this off reliably with just 1 SUB, 2 FTR in a 100% luck scenario?
EDIT: I JUST MADE A HUUUUUGE MISTAKE!!!
The other fighter (from Balkans, as the Ukr one usually dies in the R1 Ukr attack) that can reach is needed for sz15. If you attack sz15, there’s a 15% chance the battle goes badly where the battleship transport needs to retreat or battleship gets traded against uk destroyer. If either scenario happens, the game is effectively over against a top player. I prefer not to auto-lose 15% of my games as axis.
Am I to assume everything else is being sent to Karelia? How much am I leaving in E. Europe to Deadzone Ukr? What’s the practical advantage of stacking Karelia over trying to hold Ukr reliably? Is it the potential to deadzone Norway (slowing Allied progress in a KGF)?
All fine, aside from my gripes over Karelia. What do you do if the USSR stacks Ukr R2? Germany can’t really attack W. Rus. (Since the stack in Ukr and the spawned units in Caucasus and Moscow can all dive on it.), and if you try to charge Archangel Russia has enough time to shift enough forces to Moscow to force the Germans back to Karelia. So at that point you’re just handing the Soviets Ukr for free, unless I’m missing something.
I’m not trying to come off as an elitist of A&A pro by any means, I’m just rusty and don’t know how to dynamic of the Eastern front as evolved over time.
By the way, what is BGO? I’ve only ever played A&A using TripleA.
I’ll give it a shot then! Maybe this tournament will be super easy after all!!
I agree with you in not stacking Karelia with Germany. It seems absurd to me. Was I reading MarineIguana’s advice wrong? He seemed to be advocating stacking Karelia on G1.
hi! Yeah, I think Marine is right.
There are two russian openers.
1. Only do W russia and stack it. Buy 3 inf and 3 Tanks.
2. Do W Russia and Ukraine.
If USSR does 1, you can’t stack Kareila, if he does 2, then you can stack karelia.
I think 2 is better for russia, but 1 is not uncommon, because it prevents stacking karelia.
I have my doubt about taking Ukrain in R1. So far I’ve not been lucky with this move! It cost me much more than i get for it! I wonder whether it is worth the risk! Why trading 2 tanks for this tank and fighter? The value of a russian tank seem much highter to me than a german one or even a fighter early game. I seem to be much better with Russia if i take WR and Belo Russia! Russia in my game is very well able to hold off Germany and Japan in the early game, until the Allies arrive!
I usually buy 2 INF/2 ART/2 TANK to make up for the tanks I’m losing by going into Ukr.
I switch to more INF-focused builds after R1, of course.
To me, any German FTR that I can take out is one less FTR that can go after UK’s navy. The less Germany has to throw at the UK Navy, the faster the UK can start landing (or threatening to land) troops in Norway/E Europe/Karelia/W Europe. And once UK starts forcing Germany to pull troops to guard those territories, the USSR will see a good chunk of weight lifted from its shoulders (meaning it can afford to send troops to India/Sink/kill Germany/whatever).
R1 I get 3 inf 3 tank.
That 3rd ftr is needed to schirmish on a 3 area front. USSR should in general have more tanks and less inf. The tanks are good because they can stand in w russia, and threathen any japanese stack apporaching. that will buy you a couple of extra turns at least.
The thing is: i have no problem putting any pressure on Germany when i don’t do Ukrain R1. For a couple of rounds Russia can keep agressive. I would buy 2 tanks R1. 1 FGT R2 and 1 tank in later rounds. With my 4 starting tanks i have a very potent force. In UK2 or 3 i start landing in Norway to support Russia. I don’t see how 6 fighters can stop me there. The ships in the mediteranean Sea are lost to me! The uk home fleet is quite save in the first turn. I use it as a base for my future fleet. Uk1 I build a carrier to expand the fleet. If all german units position to strike my fleet i buy more defence, or i combine with the US first! I position myself to strike the Baltic fleet at some point. After that it is not worth loosing the fighters at a sea battle that will cost the UK a few transports at most.
In the mid game Germany is focused mainly on landings from the Allies. Then Russia is starting to fight off the Japanese with his tanks. Russia has an income of around 26 IPC with which it can survive the mid game easily. End game he will be under great pressure from Japan! But if the Allies have normal luck and do nothing stupid, Germany is dead or close to it!
So my conclusion so far is that you sacrifice russian tanks for a chance on a german fighter, that would harm the UK a little bit. But the UK can counter this with a buy of an extra ship. In my philosophy that trade off is not so optimal.
The thing is: i have no problem putting any pressure on Germany when i don’t do Ukrain R1.
How do you keep the initiative if you’re letting the Germans escape Ukr G1? On G1 Germany can just withdraw the bulk of its forces to a E. Europe stack and start trading Ukr. while easily overwhelming the Allies in North Africa and ferrying a decent stream of units through the Middle East to ensure that India is securely in Japanese hands by J3. If you’re just sitting in Caucasus/W. Rus trading Ukr you’re giving Germany a free hand to do whatever they want elsewhere.
For a couple of rounds Russia can keep aggressive. I would buy 2 tanks R1.
1 FGT R2 and 1 tank in later rounds.
I agree with the 1 TANK/turn philosophy (to keep a mobile and offensive-capable army on the board at all times), but I don’t agree with the FTR on R2. I understand that you can feasibly snipe the Mediterranean Fleet with 3 FTR (or at least sink the transport) but if a competent Germany scouts a lack of land units what’s stopping them from pouncing on Ukr, Arch or W. Rus with everything (which in turn forces Russia to bring everything to the German front, giving the Japanese a free hand to take Sink/India/Persia).
With my 4 starting tanks i have a very potent force. In UK2 or 3 i start landing in Norway to support Russia. I don’t see how 6 fighters can stop me there.
Germany can either subsist without Norway or simply deadzone it by stacking Ukr. It’s going to take a decently large stack of Transports to pull together a large enough force to actively hold Norway.
The point of the FTR cloud isn’t to actually kill the UK Fleet (It can’t do that cost-efficiently), but to force the Fleet to remain in one place at a time (if any transports split off from the main fleet to land in far away places the FTRs and Bomber can easily wipe them out with a pretty minimal chance of a loss).
UK amphibs into Norway, taking 2 INF/2 ART. They kill a lone INF defender without losses.
Germany sends 3 INF + 6 FTR + 1 Bomber to attack Norway (a bit of a reach, but it’s for the sake of the example so bear with me here).
Under low luck, UK gets 1 hit and a 1/3 chance at a second (INF and ART defend on a 2, 24=8, 8/6 = 1 + 1/3). Germany will get 4 hits under low luck (31 + 63 + 14 = 25, 25/6 = 4 + 1/6).
So Germany will one-shot 14 IPCs worth of material while losing 9 overall (I’m assuming that the 1-2 INF that survive will die on the following British turn when they commit another landing party). That’s pretty good value if you ask me, especially if UK is committing 100% to Europe (and losing 7+ IPCs between India/Persia/Trans-Jordan/Egypt).
The ships in the mediteranean Sea are lost to me! The uk home fleet is quite save in the first turn. I use it as a base for my future fleet. Uk1 I build a carrier to expand the fleet. If all german units position to strike my fleet i buy more defence, or i combine with the US first! I position myself to strike the Baltic fleet at some point.
What’s your timetable for killing the Baltic, out of curiosity?
I usually try to have it dead by B2 (you can do it with a B1 FTR+Destroyer+Trans build).
Sometimes you have to delay until B3 if Germany goes with a naval opening, but in those kinds of games an aggressive USSR can usually win on its own.
After that it is not worth loosing the fighters at a sea battle that will cost the UK a few transports at most.
I agree, but remember the whole point of the pressure is to force the UK player to spend turns investing in a navy. This buys Germany much needed time to stack aggressively in the USSR’s direction, forcing them to keep their men focused on the Germans and giving Japan time to get its IPC levels up to snuff with the Allies/put a drain on the Soviet and British Economies.
But you’ve never inflicted a serious loss on German hardware in this scenario. All Germany has to do is build heavy INF stacks all day (with the occasional Tank thrown in to harass the Soviets), and the Allies are going to take an awfully long time to start hurting Germany.
Additionally, if Russia is sending 5-10 IPCs of Tanks East every turn what’s stopping Germany from moving the E Europe stack into Ukr and putting the Russians in a desperate situation (guarding Caucasus and W. Rus simultaneously).
TripleA gives the Soviets an 85% chance to win with, on average, both FTRs and a lone tank surviving.
So value-wise USSR loses 23 IPC (everything but the FTR) while the Germans lose 28. A USSR win no matter how you split it.
It seems like a narrow advantage but remember the USSR gets 3 of those IPCs back by virtue of taking Ukr.
I think you might be too defensive as the allies. I have quite a few games as the allies and rarely lose.
The reason for doing ukraine is simple. You save british fleet and can lock down the med fast. That German fighter is very important in the med and africa on G1.
Depending on the result of G1, should should have some very good options on UK1. I will assume germany did place 2 units in libya, sent the med fleet with 1 ftr to 15, while sending 1 inf + 1 art from italy and 1 bomber to egypt.
Germany will most likely have taken egypt and have about 4 landunits left. he will have 5 ftrs and 1 bomber (instead of 6 fighters and 1 bomber). Where germany has placed these 5 fighters is very important. Usually, germany will not be able to place all of the fighters in france/Libya.
I reccomend uk build in this situation of 1 ftr, 5 inf and 1 tank.
You can hit egypt with 2 inf from india, 1 from TJ, 1 ftr from india and 1 bomber from uk. This attack will usually kill every german unit there, and you will quite often have an inf left to take the terr. You can at the same time send your entire UK fleet to morocco. If US sends its fleet to help you, you will have a situation where germany only have 1 inf and 1 art in africa. while you will have 2 UK inf and 2 tank in morocco and 2 us inf, 1 us art and 1 us tank. Your fleet of morocco will be: 1 UK BB, 2 UK TT, 1 US DD, 2 US TT and 1 ussr sub. At this point The german fighterposition is vitally important. If he can reach with 4 ftrs and 1 bomber, you are safe, if he has 5 ftrs and 1 bomber, this move does not work.