The charge in electromagnetism seemingly plays the same role like mass in the Newtonian mechanics.But why we define the current unit (Ampere) in  as the fundamental rather than charge unit?
I always thought of current as the time derivative of charge, $\frac{dq}{dt}$. However, I found out recently that it is the ampere that is the base unit and not the coulomb. Why is this? It seems to me that charge can exist without current, but current cannot exist without charge. So the logical choice for a base unit would be the coulomb. Right?
Embedded Prolog Interpreter/Compiler for Java No reason for anyone to see pending close votes, except OP (and maybe people who already voted) PC started having screen glitches after update I'm not sure what's caused it. I haven't changed any system settings. The only thing I've done that may have broken something is updating my software. My update was: upgrade linux-generic-hwe-20.04:amd64 5.8.0.48.54~20.04.32 5.8.0.49.55~20.04.33 upgrade linux-image-generic-hwe-20.04:amd64 5.8.0.48.54~20.04.32  upgrade linux-headers-generic-hwe-20.04:amd64 5.8.0.48.54~20.04.32  upgrade linux-image-extra-virtual:amd64 5.4.0.70.73 5.4.0.71.74 upgrade linux-image-generic:amd64 5.4.0.70.73 5.4.0.71.74 upgrade linux-libc-dev:amd64 5.4.0-70.78 5.4.0-71.79 upgrade libseccomp2:amd64 2.4.3-1ubuntu3.20.04.3 2.5.1-1ubuntu1~20.04.1 upgrade nomachine:amd64 7.3.2-3 7.4.1-3```  Removing nomachine did not solve the problem. It was far worse before, I'm not sure how to describe exactly, but my entire screen's UI was glitching out. So I rebooted and that stopped, but now the terminal text looks like this:  I haven't changed any terminal settings. This seems to be occurring in the entire OS. Here is another example:  Not sure how to go about troubleshooting this? I don't have the time to reinstall the OS, nor do I think I should have to because this is just ridiculous and shouldn't happen. I'm not aware of anything I've done to make the system unstable. Edit Earlier I also tried booting the PC. It failed and got stuck on some command in a terminal (didn't manage to take a photo of what it said). So I rebooted into recovery mode with both available kernels. I was getting strange glitches like this:  That didn't work. So I rebooted the PC normally, and now I somehow logged in fine. Now I'm getting popups saying to report a system error. It says this:  Environment  Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS GNOME 3.36.8  sudo lshw -class display   *-display        description: VGA compatible controller        product: Xeon E3-1200 v3/4th Gen Core Processor Integrated Graphics Controller        vendor: Intel Corporation        physical id: 2        bus info: pci@0000:00:02.0        version: 06        width: 64 bits        clock: 33MHz        capabilities: msi pm vga_controller bus_master cap_list rom        configuration: driver=i915 latency=0        resources: irq:33 memory:f7800000-f7bfffff memory:e0000000-efffffff ioport:f000(size=64) memory:c0000-dffff  I also did , which passed with 0 errors. Let me know if more details are required. I’m looking for an alien movie I watched years ago, mid to late 2000’s about the Earth being cooked or heated up by aliens. The poster is a reflection of the Earth heating up with an orange glow on an aliens eye. It was a low budget movie and I think the one I watched was pirated from China. Again low budget, bad quality and the name could’ve been something worthy he word scorch or something like that. The alien in the movie had legs with knees that went inwards and it had red eyes. Find html element which id starts with How does the drift velocity of electrons in a conductor depend on the temperature? How does the drift velocity of electrons in a conductor depend on the temperature?  I have two contradicting views for this.    First, we can say that increasing the temperature of the conductor will increase the kinetic energy of the electrons. Hence, their drift velocity should increase with increase in temperature.  Or, from the relation $v_d = \frac{eE}{m}T$ ($T$ is the relaxation time) we can say that the drift velocity is directly proportional to the relaxation time. Increasing the temperature will obviously decrease the relaxation time - as collisions will become more frequent - and thus decrease the drift velocity. Hence, an increase in the temperature will cause a decrease in the drift velocity.   So which view is correct? why does fdisk add one additional sector when creating partitions? I'm playing around with fdisk and I tried to create a partition on an empty USB drive. Here's how that went: Command (m for help): n Partition number (1-128, default 1): 1 First sector (34-61187102, default 2048): 2048 Last sector, +/-sectors or +/-size{K,M,G,T,P} (2048-61187102, default 61187102): +30000000           Created a new partition 1 of type 'Linux filesystem' and of size 14,3 GiB.  so just one partition with 30 million sectors. However, when I check how many sectors it contains I get:  I'm checking with a different program and I see again that additional sector:  Sorry for the pettiness :) I'm learning. SGS2 screen gets more and more dark blue, possibly after overheated charging Randomize a List What is the best way to randomize the order of a generic list in C#? I've got a finite set of 75 numbers in a list I would like to assign a random order to, in order to draw them for a lottery type application. Why Didn't People Think That Voldemort Died After His Attack on Baby Harry? After the Avada Kedavra curse rebounded from Harry onto Voldemort, Voldemort disappeared. I'm curious as to why so many key players believed Voldemort was still "alive" somewhere, his powers decimated, but, under the right circumstances, able to return to full power. It seems the witches and wizards in chapter one of Philosopher's Stone, The Boy Who Lived, were happy to believe that Voldemort was gone forever. Why didn't everyone believe Voldemort had died, rather than just disappeared? Was it the lack of a body? Or were there other reasons?  Here's a couple of quotes from Philosopher's Stone if anyone wants to review them. Otherwise, just disregard.     ‘A fine thing it would be if, on the very day You- Know-Who seems to have disappeared at last, the Muggles found out about us all. I suppose he really has gone, Dumbledore?’   ‘It certainly seems so,’ said Dumbledore. ‘We have much to be thankful for.’   Philosopher's Stone - page 13 - Bloomsbury - chapter 1, The Boy Who Lived   ‘But what happened to Vol– sorry – I mean, You-Know-Who?’   ‘Good question, Harry. Disappeared. Vanished. Same night he tried ter kill you. Makes yeh even more famous. That’s the biggest myst’ry, see ... he was gettin’ more an’ more powerful – why’d he go?   ‘Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die. Some say he’s still out there, bidin’ his time, like, but I don’ believe it. People who was on his side came back ter ours. Some of ’em came outta kinda trances. Don’ reckon they could’ve done if he was comin’ back.   ‘Most of us reckon he’s still out there somewhere but lost his powers. Too weak to carry on. ’Cause somethin’ about you finished him, Harry. There was somethin’ goin’ on that night he   hadn’t counted on – I dunno what it was, no one does – but somethin’ about you stumped him, all right.’   Philosopher's Stone - pages 46-47 - Bloomsbury - chapter 4, The Keeper of the Keys How to resume baking fluid simulation? It happens sometimes that after finishing bake (e.g., for fluid simulation) we wish we could continue the simulation for two more seconds :(    How to use the cached bake to continue the simulation?  We played with the settings, but with no success. Existence in ZF of a set with countable power set Enlarged partition, filesystem still reports old size Is "connected, simply connected" Redundant? Here are my definitions of &quot;connected&quot; and &quot;simply connected.&quot;  A topological space $X$ is connected if and only if it is not the union of two nonempty disjoint open sets. A topological space $X$ is simply connected if and only if it is path-connected and has trivial fundamental group (i.e. $\pi_1(X)\simeq\{\mathrm{e}\}$ and $|\pi_0(X)|=1$).  It is a classic and elementary exercise in topology to show that, if a space is path-connected, then it is connected. Thus, if a space is simply connected, then it is connected. Yet, despite this implication, I've read several cases where the words &quot;connected, simply connected&quot; appear together. For example, in Kobayashi and Nomizu's Foundations of Differential Geometry, Volume 1, page 252, the following is written: &quot;Let $M$ be a connected, simply connected analytic manifold with an analytic linear connection.&quot; In  and  (Links to Journal Storage, also known as JSTOR), they use &quot;connected, simply connected&quot; on their first page. The first of these takes it a step further, referring to &quot;closed, compact, connected, simply connected $4$-manifolds,&quot; where a closed manifold (unfortunate terminology) is defined as a compact manifold without boundary. My question is simple: Why use the words &quot;connected, simply connected&quot; when being simply connected implies connectedness? Thank you. Show that $C[a,b]$ is a complete space under the metric $d(f,g)=\sup_{t\in [a,b]}|f(t)-g(t)|$. How long does it take for a black hole to form for an external observer? We let a>0 and b>0 and  we have $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b^n-a^n$. We have to find all values a,b>0 where $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b^n-a^n$ is convergent. I think I can use that $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} b_n &lt; \infty , \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n &lt; \infty \implies \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} (b_n-a_n) &lt; \infty. $$. And I think $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b^n$ and $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a^n$ is convergent if a&lt;1 and b&lt;1? It will make sense. But how can I show it? Stripped out bottom bracket Display View counts of Questions in Mobile version I often use Stack Exchange sites from my smartphone. It works great, but I always have to switch to full version to see view counts of a question. Can you please add it? There's plenty of space on question page for it to place. I request community to suggest a location. I want to describe my business and want to refer to it in a sentence.  I am trying to say:      "In 2015 we established a business (that is) named X".   Intuitively, the "that is" part is redundant, and makes the sentence more cumbersome. But I cannot think of a reason why we should be able to drop the verb.  Is the version without the "that is" part grammatically correct? How can it be explained?