Carrock

Not in every legal sense. She' still young enough to be punished as a child in this context. If she's an adult, why doesn't Bangladesh assign final (non)citizenship status at 18? It's actually depressingly common for children to be punished as adults for crimes only children can commit. Do you really think individuals' responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions should reduce with increasing age?. Just saw your edit. Indeed. In some countries fifteen(or nineteen) year olds can be executed for crimes similar to those which she has allegedly committed. I doubt you want her executed, but that's where your logic seems to lead.

Or saying children should not be punished more than adults. If she'd been 21 her citizenship couldn't be revoked, according to legal precedents.

I knew you'd pull that one... so predictable. Yes. She must experience the full weight of her actions. And of course, if you're suspected of being complicit in your daughter's actions, you'd be happy to have your own citizenship, like hers, revoked based on secret evidence. You must experience the full weight of your suspected actions. Or not? Don't trivialize it. Is life as a stateless person trivial? Do you really think any country would grant her citizenship?

Yet another way to look at this.... The distinction between classical and quantum objects is purely arbitrary. See e.g. Heisenberg cut. Evidence of e.g. a macroscopic decoherence field or a consciousness/observer field has been looked for and not found. When/where/if a measurement is made is therefor an arbitrary choice, generally based on convenience. Since measurement/nonmeasurement is arbitrarily defined, any observation effect during measurement would have to be nonexistent to be consistent with measurements.

From the verse and bible you selectively quoted: Would it be fair to summarise that as 'Two eyes for an eye, two teeth for a tooth?' or acquisition of wealth as the Lord God's justification for mass murder?

You may find this quote from your own reference on quora helpful.

A reference would be good; can't find it accepted anywhere ... edit: maybe taeto had better luck

How does melting ice result in less water in rivers? It doesn't, if averaged over a year or more. If a glacier eventually thaws completely, then the following year, after snow melts in spring, there will be no meltwater during summer, at the time it is most needed. i.e. the water in rivers will mostly flow during winter/spring. I presume itero did not feel it necessary to go into this much detail.

You could consider various types of white paper which can't be directly burnt with your glass, only charred. You could brown but not overly oxidise a sufficient area that you can then take advantage of increased absorption to ignite the paper. Some skill required, at least for an eight year old, IIRC.

You may get a more sympathetic response on this forum. https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/index.php

Each individual 2mg pill weighs 0.000002Kg. Or am I missing something?

Don't know. As a non-chemist: Glacial acetic acid seems to be readily available on the internet. Diluted as required, it should be much cheaper than using vinegar. Handle with care.

Oops... You responded to a couple of typos before I corrected them.

A 1% difference in a 5’ tide would be +/- 0.6” or a 1% difference in a 50’ tide would be +/- 6” If by 'unnoticeable,' you mean not measured, then many people have never noticed any tide. Only an ignorant subset of the general public are unaware tides exist or would be completely unaware of Ceres' tidal effects. Eventually tidal forces over millions of years might stabilise the orbit inside the lunar orbit. I can't think of anything faster. Speculation: I suspect that as the moon/earth mass ratio is the highest of any satellite/planet in the solar system, the likeliest, perhaps inevitable, outcome is that Ceres would collide with earth or moon within a few centuries. (Or orbital mechanics would become an applied science.)

To the ignorant subset of the general public, yes. I'd assumed Ceres' mass was not much smaller than the moon.

Which gets more done, a big stick or a hearty handshake with Donald Trump? A lot of discussion of big sticks in this thread, ignoring the financially biggest and most lethal. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Country Spending ($Billion) World total 1,739 United States 610.0 People's Republic of China 228.0 Saudi Arabia 69.4 Russia 66.3 A perhaps apocryphal quote by my grandfather from a German during WW2. "When the British planes come over, we duck; when the German planes come over, you duck; when the American planes come over we all duck." Plus ca change....

I've never reached a definite view... haven't thought about this complex issue enough. I feel Snow is describing a snobbish attitude that is at a few times and places quite common, but fortunately doesn't seem to do much harm to other people. The OP is describing the other side i.e. science snobs and the self-harm of their narrow-minded attitudes is much clearer than the self-harm of culture snobs.

It's perhaps a bit off topic but I'm reminded of C.P. Snow's Two Cultures lecture.

You need a bit more. e.g. 'This is correct for a 647 watt oven. Adjust irradiation for different power levels to take account of heat lost, during irradiation, by convection and radiation etc and to minimise mankiness. See equations below.' If I've accidentally weirded the language in this post, I blame it on being required to study Shackspeare with no warning about his bad grammar and spelling. (too much time wasted on the following not to include it) Where are the ungrammatical hills of yesteryear? "Torpenhow Hill" is a ghost word * and has been retrospectively desubstantiated out of existence. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_word#Origin_of_the_term * 'Two is equal to one' is good English and is useful when desubstantiation is required.

I didn't intend that implication. Any suitable detector could be used. Perhaps we agree.

OK, but that surely also applies to my original example of an array of photoelectric effect detectors.

Any detection, not only photoelectric, involves If this cannot be used as a necessary part of evidence of wave behavior, then what evidence is there for wave behaviour?

I really liked the video. Accurate (AFIK) and open ended i.e. with clear indications of the complicated physics necessarily skipped in such a brief explanation. <my answer> Not sure about the first sentence. Agree with the second sentence. A slightly different question. How would you look for wave behavior? <answer> Is there any answer which precludes this response: The wave behavior happens before the detection. At the instant of detection, you have particle behavior (localized, quantized energy)

Interpretations... sometimes I think it would be easier just to shut up and calculate . I was responding to this specific post: So no need for me to verify the (assumed) photoelectric effect, just use it to show wave behavior. Implicitly I was using photons of more than threshhold energy. I actually think I've only shown behaviour consistent with unobservable waves. I'd ignored Migl etc because of this interpretation issue: I agree with this despite my earlier probably inconsistent post; my view more clearly: This is a common view of wave/particle duality which I've never understood. How can you ever 'observe' e.g. probability waves except by detecting particles and calculating their properties are consistent with probability waves, quantum effects, wave/particle duality etc? i.e. those waves are useful, unobservable constructs. I suspect I'm just interpreting that last quote in the 'wrong' way. This gets more complicated the more I think about it..... even 'observation' and 'wave behaviour' are hard to define.

Could you you explain why my example is at cross purposes and your example is not: