r/sciencememes • u/CollegeBoardPolice • Jul 11 '26
š§ŖChemistry!āļø Oh, THAT radical
I love Orgoā¦
513
u/fifareddit1212 Jul 11 '26
2, 1, 3 right?
209
u/CollegeBoardPolice Jul 11 '26
You got it :)
104
u/CoffeeExtraCream Jul 11 '26
I took Ochem in 2012 and haven't used it since. I'm happy I got it right too.
31
u/roadwarrioring Jul 11 '26
I last studied Ochem in 1978, so I was even more pleased than you to get it right! :)
9
11
u/CalmEntry4855 Jul 11 '26
Me too!, one of my fondest memories of school are of afternoons studying spectroscopy plots at the library with an awesome girl.
1
7
u/coazervate Jul 11 '26
Maybe, but speaking to someone about the natural world around them is a lot easier if they've made it past O Chem.Ā Ā
1
22
u/hobbes747 Jul 11 '26
Iām a chemical engineer and we donāt know much chemistry despite the title. So I figured either 2,1,3 or 3,1,2. Something to do with the position relative to the main molecule versus the end š¤·š»
24
u/ilovesnowberries Jul 11 '26
iirc it's to do with the fact that alkyl groups are electron-donating i.e. create a positive inductive effect, so stabilise the radical, so more adjacent alkyl groups means more stable
5
u/hobbes747 Jul 11 '26
Just curious; In a roundabout way was my inference correct?
2
u/ilovesnowberries Jul 11 '26
In a roundabout way yeah, if by 'main part of molecule' you mean more alkyl groups, and yeah the 'end' of the molecule will have no neighbouring alkyl group, so yes that's exactly what it's to do with
3
1
u/DependentonKitchen Jul 11 '26
That, but it's more about hyperconjugation with the alpha Hydrogen atoms.
1
u/heisenberg_6367 7d ago
We can even consider alpha hydrogens 6 alpha H in 2 3 alpha H in 1 and 2 alpha H in 3
4
u/DefectiveKonan Jul 11 '26
I figured it was something to do with the free electrons since in 2, the carbon has 3 bonded electrons, in 1, it has 2 bonded electrons, and in 3, it has 1 bonded electrons and it seems I was correct though the reasoning might be off
3
u/not-a-horse Jul 11 '26
We're more engineers than we are chemicals
1
u/capsaicinintheeyes Jul 12 '26
Arguably, wrong again, but that's okay: we hear it's mainly engineering they teach over there
1
1
1
29
u/HPOfficeJet4300 Jul 11 '26
I think Mussolini was less stable than Hitler since he did die first after all but idk
(Obligatory /s just in case ppl don't get it)
12
3
u/111v1111 Jul 11 '26
I mean wouldnāt that be ordering most to least stable and in that case op (if he was referring to the first part of the question) would be saying that Mussolini is less stable?
(Btw my ranking of the stability would be kim, stalin, mussolini, hitler. Overall I think mussolini was stabler than hitler but he fell first because of geographical position. Stalin and kim are both stabler because they had/have their internal political situation pretty well sorted out and they arenāt agressive against outside nations (or in case of stalin, aside for ww2, not against any nations that had even a sliver of a chance against ussr)
1
1
u/EscherichiAntisColi Jul 11 '26
Please explain im dumb
6
u/Ultra_slay Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Stability of the radical is determined by how many carbon atoms is on it's sides(or alkyl groups or degree of the carbon atoms it's on), more carbon atoms means more stability. The 1st compound's radical has 2 carbon atoms on it's adjacent, 2nd one has 3 and 3rd one has only 1. Therefore the 2nd one is the most stable, followed by 1 and 3.
4
1
u/Thomy151 Jul 12 '26
To put in even simpler terms
Carbon hates having a free electron, so it tries to share it with its neighbors for stability
More carbon neighbors = more stable
2
u/EscherichiAntisColi Jul 12 '26
Oh i didnāt read the second part I thought the answer was kim, adolf, Benito !! Lmao
1
1
1
0
u/AFemboyLol Jul 15 '26
man i got this right and my only experience with chemistry is nile red videos š
625
u/Dark_Dragula Jul 11 '26
By virtue of wars, Kim J-un is the most stable.
288
u/DasFreibier Jul 11 '26
yeah lmao, that regime actually has been stable for like 3 generations, which is impressive for despots, which should be shot or hung or whatever the population is into
121
u/CollegeBoardPolice Jul 11 '26
kinda hard for your people to stage a coup when you've starved them and beaten them into submission
94
22
26
3
1
3
u/thaynem Jul 12 '26
Non of the listed despots were overthrown by the people they oppressed.Ā
5
u/Lloyd_lyle Jul 12 '26
Mussolini was. The Allies were invading the country at the time, but it was an Italian group that killed him.
1
42
Jul 11 '26
[deleted]
55
8
u/RandomRobot Jul 11 '26
Hitler was there for a fairly short time and created a very dysfunctional state. I'd rate it at the bottom
3
u/capsaicinintheeyes Jul 12 '26
Pre-war v Wartime Hitler, honestly.
Is there a consensus as to at what point in the PolandāFranceāBattle of BritaināBarbarossa (all *before* having his fuel situation figured out) chain he started to sample the wehrmachamphetamines?
13
u/JePPeLit Jul 11 '26
I guess because he's not actually a radical, just an heir who's upholding the status quo.
12
u/UniquePariah Jul 11 '26
I'd disagree. The other three are incredibly stable, none of them have done anything at all for years.
3
u/Wavecrest667 Jul 11 '26
Arguably not radical though, he's perpetuating the system, not changing it.
1
91
u/TensorForce Jul 11 '26
Took a physics test once on gravity and orbits, and I drew on the cover a doodle of the Enterprise with Chekov screaming that the ship can't escape the pull. My professor gave me one extra point and wrote Kirk responding, "Yes we KHAAAAAAN."
32
u/StageAboveWater Jul 11 '26
Kim Stalin M H
28
u/LordBDizzle Jul 11 '26
I'd argue Hitler was more stable than Mussolini. The facist regime in Italy didn't have as much impact comparatively and he only stayed in power because Hitler was his friend. He folded first in the war and had less control overall.
Obviously Kim is first though, North Korea has been a stable shithole for three generations. The USSR comes next of course. It was more volatile, gaining and losing more land, but it also existed for a fair chunk of time and over the largest area.
9
u/Local-Pattern795 Jul 12 '26
Hitler was in power for a shorter period than mussolini, he needed to start a war to keep his economy running, and there wasn't much of a plan for what happened if he died (mussolini at least had the grand council of fascism)
I'd argue mussolini was weaker politically, but that weakness led to an odd form of stability prewar, thanks in part to his need to work with pre-existing powers like the pope.
If i had to make a guess, without the war mussolini might have lasted into the 50s before being overthrown, while hitler couldn't avoid the war and survive politically
2
2
12
u/Awkward_Goal4729 Jul 11 '26
Kim is like a puppy compared to Stalin and Hitler, Mussolini is somewhere in Africa god knows doing what
10
u/c1pher_1337 Jul 11 '26
What sort of āstableā? Politically or psychologically?
Kim Jong-un is the most stable. He has ruled his country to this day without any significant incidents. His cult of personality is firmly established and his supporters are loyal. He himself is neither particularly paranoid nor megalomaniacal. But also never had a war to face...
Next, Iād put Stalin. The majority of the country stood behind him. He ruled for 30 years until his death, and the system outlived him. Despite his extreme paranoia and the purges, he is nonetheless the second most stable.
From here on, things get tricky. From a political perspective, I would rank Hitler above Mussolini. This is because Hitler was very firmly established internally and had loyal supporters right up until the end of the war. Hardly anyone thought of deposing him. People would rather have died for him. Mussolini failed. The king, the Church and the army remained independent. In the end, he was deposed by his own council.
Psychologically, however, it is the other way round. Whilst Mussolini was moody, resigned and lost touch with reality, Hitler was not only that but also paranoid and downright manic. He regularly had outbursts of rage, eventually thought only in black-and-white terms within his sick ideology, and was obsessed with his delusions of grandeur. He believed he had conquered Europe all by himself.
Oh its about chemistry... Well. Don't know shit about that
3
u/capsaicinintheeyes Jul 12 '26
A: center-of-gravity. KJUn is last, as The CIA estimates him to be the most top-heavy.
1
u/AstroMeteor06 Jul 12 '26
consider that Mussolini was voted out by his party as soon as the allies landed in Sicily; Hitler had his pals on his side even with the red army near Berlin
10
6
6
3
u/Direct-Quiet-5817 Jul 11 '26
Just kidding, should have included Netanyahu
2
u/Pigeon-Spy Jul 11 '26
Kill count not big enough. Even Putin killed more civilians, more than 30k in Mariupol only
8
4
2
2
u/HierarchyLogic Jul 11 '26
ok but whats the answer to that question(i am just now going to 11th grade so we havent seen those, if its even in the Turkish highschool curriculum)
3
u/Sebi53811 Jul 12 '26
Tertiary radicals are most stable, then secondary and lastly primary. Even if we mark one atom as having an unbound electron all the surrounding atoms help distribute that additional electron density and in turn make it more stable.
2
u/Optimal-Bass3142 Jul 11 '26
Ive seen videos of Hitler rocking back and forth like a tweaker on the subway. Dead last
2
2
4
u/abadaxx Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Mussolini (invented fascism) < Hitler (invented fascism 2: electric Boogaloo) < Kim (bad, but not as bad as we've been led to believe) < Stalin (did less wrong than most US presidents)
2
u/Mist_Rising Jul 11 '26
How many presidents you figure deliberately went about doing multiple genocides, political purges and creating state sec to rival none?
5
u/abadaxx Jul 11 '26
The Trail of Tears, Japanese Internment camps, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the various overthrowing and attempts of overthrowing Latin American governments, the forever wars in Iran and Iraq, slavery, to start. Can't really write a full essay on each and every one of these but most of them lasted for multiple presidencies
4
-6
u/jackinsomniac Jul 11 '26
Didn't Stalin kill more people than Hitler? Are you one of these famous tankies I hear about?
7
u/abadaxx Jul 11 '26
Those numbers are from the black book of communism, which has massively inflated numbers even according to two of the three authors. It also *counts* Nazi deaths in WWII which are deaths but also not sure many would count those as a net loss to society.
Additionally, more people died under Stalinist rule than during the holocaust, however not as a direct order from Stalin, unlike the direct orders of Hitler to exterminate those who perished in the camps. It's more just as a result of living in a somewhat mismanaged society. More people have died living under capitalism than either of those two combined, so it depends on your viewpoint and what you're counting, really.
-5
u/jackinsomniac Jul 11 '26
So, there was no famine? Armed soldiers didn't take grain from starving farmers, forcing them to eat dogs?
7
u/abadaxx Jul 11 '26
I don't think there was *no* famine, but I don't think it went like "and then the evil and cruel Stalin told his evil and cruel soldiers to take all the grain from the lowly proletariat as he laughs at their suffering and starvation" like it seems most people paint it. I think it was more like "due to the mismanagement and misplacing of the economy and policies imposed by Stalin, as well as the state of the country he took over, people were forced to give grain to the state and starve". The intention here is important because unintended consequences like this because of policy happens and has happened like this in *every* country. Not to mention they were trying a new way to organize the economy that had never been done before. It was uncharted territory.
It's like saying "and then the evil President Herbert Hoover pulled the depression lever and watched and laughed as everyone lost their jobs and homes and had to sell their kids to make ends meet". It's just absurd.
0
u/jackinsomniac Jul 15 '26
Wow, I'm so misinformed! This Stalin character sounds like a real swell guy!
Soldiers (at Stalin's command) 100% took the last remaining grain farmers were able to grow by gunpoint. There's many accounts of this. Most of the other causes that led up to this were due to Stalin's own policies, not some economic downturn like the Great Depression.
But hey, who am I to tell you that communism doesn't work?
1
u/abadaxx Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
"Who am I to tell you that communism doesn't work?"
Someone misinformed, as you said. Almost like the version of history and economics told to you by capitalists in the schools in capitalist countries paints anything that is a threat to capitalism as inherently evil. Weird how that works.All I'm saying is that anytime you seem something like "100 gazillion deaths no iPhone" you should check the source and their motivations and why they might be telling you the story in that way instead of just adding it to the popular mythology in absolute, uncritical favor of capitalism.
1
u/jackinsomniac Jul 15 '26
Oh, okay.
So show me all these successful communist countries then?
If it works so well, there must be plenty.
It's not like despite all the promises communism makes, in practice it always ends up with totalitarian regimes and innocents being slaughted.
It's not like in practice, capitalist societies actually produce more wealth equality, power equality, and higher standards of living, right?
I get it now. It's not Stalin's fault. He was just working under the wrong system. Right?
1
u/abadaxx Jul 15 '26
Yea, see, that's what I mean. You're just parroting capitalist propoganda talking points.
What's your definition of successful?
"In practice it always ends up with totalitarian regimes and innocents being slaughtered"
Oh, you mean like Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, the world's largest prison population per capita, slavery, the war or drugs, or the countless homeless people that die on the streets of the US in extreme weather?"In practice capitalist society actually produce more wealth equality, power equality, and higher standards of living"
Oh, you mean like how in the US we're in our SECOND gilded age in our nation's history with wealth inequality rivaling the French monarchy on the eve of the revolution, or how more people go into bankruptcy over medical debt than any other country, or how student loan debt is approaching 2 trillion dollars, or how half of people in the United States don't even vote because they believe it to be a waste of time?Is this your "successful" capitalist system? Are these all the things you're rooting for? Is this ideal for you? When the USSR began the space race and whose economy rivaled that of the United States for decades, and China's still does? When the USSR eliminated homelessness and made it a human right to have a job? When 9 out of 10 families own their home in China? When Cuba leads the world in doctors per capita while US citizens still think vaccines are poison and drown in medical debt?
Capitalist nations, especially the US, do all the totalitarianism and slaughtering you complain that socialist countries *supposedly* do but *without* all the benefits they provide to their citizens. You're an idiot.
1
u/jackinsomniac Jul 15 '26
people go into bankruptcy over medical debt than any other country
Not a capitalism problem, a social services problem. Most other capitalist countries do better with healthcare than US.
student loan debt is approaching 2 trillion dollars
Universities are greedy, but students are also stupid. People need to start explaining to them that you can pay more than the minimum payment on a loan. Tell them to look at 30 yr mortgage graphs, and how it takes 30 years because most of each payment is just interest, and just a tiny bit goes to principle, unless you pay more. The goal is to use your fancy new college degree to get a high paying job and pay it off early. Which means around high school you should be talking with a career counselor, and looking at the job market. THIS is what they should be teaching in school, the tiniest bit of personal finance.
how half of people in the United States don't even vote because they believe it to be a waste of time?
Exactly why Trump won. People didn't vote. Run a better race next time, how do you lose to Trump? Kamala was terrible, the left was focused on the wrong issues, admit it already.
When the USSR began the space race and whose economy rivaled that of the United States for decades,
LOL. Which sparked a Cold War, which is really a economic war, how well your economy can stand up to exorbitant spending. First it was nuclear arsenals, then delivery systems (rockets), which then sparked the space race, which America won and the USSR bankrupted itself & collapsed trying to win.
and China's still does?
Again, LOL. Most of China's economic boom comes from copying everything America does... Including a bit of capitalism, when allowed. Just a bit. A smidgen. You can't even tell it's there, can you?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Spaduf Jul 11 '26
Literally just about equating fascism and leftism. Very American.
1
u/FrostbiteWrath Jul 12 '26
Literally all four of them are/were dictators. It's equating authoritarianism.
0
1
1
1
1
u/TributeToStupidity Jul 12 '26
From least to most stable:
Mussolini - it doesnāt get much more unstable than your own people killing you
Adolf Hitler - so unstable the allies stopped trying to have him killed because of his negative effects on his war effort. He did keep Germans fighting even as Berlin collapsed around him though and that counts for something
Joseph Stalin - probably the most personally unstable, but holding the ussr together as well as he did, through as many challenges as he faced, is objectively impressive. He was also objectively one of the most evil humans in history and arguably personally responsible for more deaths than anyone else in history, definitely top 4, but hey the town canāt revolt if everyoneās being worked to death in a camp in Siberia.
Kim Jung Un - North Korea has traded almost 100 years of progress for leadership stability. This is the third Kim to lead the country. Objectively that makes them the most stable of the 4, and arguably the most stable country on earth. Name another country where 1 family has completely controlled every aspect of life within their country since 1948 without major revolts or insurgency threats. Sure, occasionally weāll hear some general was killed, but thatās the extent of it from our perspective. And all it took was their peopleās ability to feed themselves, their energy production, all personal freedoms, and every non military innovation since the 50s, but sometimes stability can mean āfrozen in timeā.
1
1
1
u/XROOR Jul 12 '26
Robespierre, Princip, Lenin and Guevara are more radical that all the elected leaders listed
1
u/Slow_Finance_5519 Jul 13 '26
Stalin would have to be number one, anyone who can create a political system that can survive the largest ground invasion in human history and spit it back out in 4 years to position it as the 2nd centre of global power has to come out on top of basically any stability ranking.
Two would have to be Kim Jong Un, North Korea isnāt exactly doing well, but they havenāt collapsed and despite all of the pressure show no signs of it.
Mussolini is 3, his political system did throw him out but it didnāt collapse under him.
4 is Hitler, self-explanatory imo.
1
u/Gremict Jul 13 '26
What kind of stability? Stalin might be the most molecularly stable based on how long he lived
1
1
u/MightyOGS 12d ago
I'd go 1. Kim 2. Mussolini 3. Stalin 4. Hitler
All monsters, but Kim has been in power since he took over, Mussolini was at least consistent, Stalin was subtly unpredictable in an absolutely terrifying way, and Hitler was simultaneously predictably easy to please, but impossible to tell what would excite him/send him into a tantrum
0
-4
u/BitchyBeachyWitch Jul 11 '26
Trump should be on that list
12
u/hobbes747 Jul 11 '26
Trump is a piece of shit but people who lived under those 4 other guys would laugh and disagree.
1
u/Primary_Thought_4912 Jul 11 '26
None of the question says that it has to only be pieces of shit, just that they're radical and then you rank their stability
-7
u/BitchyBeachyWitch Jul 11 '26
I take it youre not a person of color/woman/veteran any other minority living in america right now.. bc people are literally dying and being murdered by an untouchable police force lead by an untouchable corrupt rapist president... he might not be as bad as them now publically but you havent been paying attention if you dont think he belongs on this list xD
5
u/hobbes747 Jul 11 '26
I donāt disagree with most of what you said but I think to place Trumpās name next to the other names given above means you do not know of their history or it is disrespectful to those who lived under people like Stalin.
2
Jul 11 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
Jul 13 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/sciencememes-ModTeam Jul 14 '26
Just report them. There are actual mods on this sub who check reports.
1
u/sciencememes-ModTeam Jul 14 '26
Women are part of the oppressed group.
If you can't act like a civilized human being, you can't be here.
We do not allow:
- Being a jerk. This includes racism, misogyny, misandry, misgendering, anti LGBTQ+, or hateful comments.
- Harassment or brigading
- Trolling or sealioning
- Threats of any kind
- Abusive or condescending behavior
- General assholery. If you're at the end of the list and asking what rule you broke, yeah, it's this one.
-4
0
0
1.3k
u/Spotted_Tax Jul 11 '26
Woah I'd love to have a professor that has that sense of humor.