exchemist

As I say, I think you have made that up, or possibly you are imagining it. Provide the reference and I will believe you. But not otherwise.

TACO.

Christ almighty. I’m out.

I have told you: action has dimensions of energy x time. Its energy may be constant but its action won’t be. Because of the x time. Action is a concept used in Lagrangian mechanics.

If you wait for 10 years the action has increased rather a lot, because its dimensions are energy x time.

Ah, the light dawns. You have completely misconstrued the meaning of this. What it says isGod gave them (i.e. the disbelieving people) over to the worship of the sun etc. That means God gave up with them and let them go back to their previous primitive pagan ways. (Acts 7:42 in My Jerusalem bible has "God turned away from them and abandoned them to the worship of the army of heaven".) It emphatically does not say or imply that God "made the moon for people to worship", which is what you originally asserted.

Yes I think is the yeast having time to digest the gluten that makes traditionally proved bread more digestible. Since Chorleywood came in, half the country seems to have developed gluten intolerance!

But that's the point. To speak of action implies a duration. And it also implies potential energy. If you just talk about a stream of particles, you have specified neither. It's meaningless. You're just bullshitting.

You have absolutely no idea what are talking about, have you?

J.s has dimensions of action. How can a stream of particles have the dimensions of action? I can see how it could have dimension of J/s, i.e. the rate of energy flow past a given point, thereby defining the size of the stream. But action? How can that work?

Your question is not a complete sentence. Typo? Can you try again?

I am not a baker but my understanding is the second rise gives the yeast time to "digest" the flour properly, giving a more chewy and resilient crumb when the bred is baked and improving its taste. In the UK, almost all commercial bread is now made by something called the "Chorleywood Process", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process , invented after the war and relying on much more yeast and violent mechanical mixing, followed by a short single rising time before baking. In consequence most modern British bread is horrible: a weak texture with little resilience and which dries up rapidly, a kind of biscuity taste - and rather indigestible. One of the reasons why boutique "sourdough" bread is now becoming popular (even I have reluctantly succumbed) is because that is made slowly and avoids these faults.A lot of young people now think that this is a feature of sourdough. It isn't. Properly made bread by the old method is just the same - without the sour taste. As recently as the 1980s one could still find local bakers, even in places that were not very prosperous, that made excellent bread. But almost no one makes it any more. This, as I say, is just my understanding as a consumer, not a baker, but one who, due to years of rowing, has always really enjoyed good bread - and hates the bad stuff. Someone more knowledgeable may contradict some of what I have written. You will need someone with baking experience to answer your other questions.

No my question is what authority Trump has for firing the existing incumbent. Can the president just do that, if he feels like it?

What then would be Trump's authority for firing the head of the bureau of labour statistics, as he just has because he didn't like the numbers?

Yes, the Exodus thing seems to be instructions for a form of ritual worship rather than praise per se but I see what you mean.

Do they demand praise, though? My knowledge of the OT is admittedly a bit sketchy, but as I recall it is people in the bible who exhort others to praise God, rather than a demand from God himself. I don't know about Islam.

It could. This story at least is a reminder that scientists far from immune from developing idées fixes or going a bit nuts, just like anyone else.

Is this saying that applying sunscreen does not much inhibit synthesis of vitamin D by the body? If so, good to know. (I'm interested in this as since the Covid pandemic I've been taking a daily vitamin D pill in the winter 6 months, on the advice of my doctor brother, to keep my immune system in good order. But I don't in the summer 6 months on the basis that I get enough sunshine to keep the level up.)

Yeah, Avi "Frontal" Loeb.😁

Oh please, not a YouTube video. Those are usually worthless. Can you summarise the points made?

Why don’t you start by following up the organisations listed in the Wikipaedia article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosimilar

One might hope that the -ve feedback designers are getting over "botshit", "hallucinations" and the recent sycophancy débâcle over Chat GPT will make them start to tweak the models, to be a bit more assertive in questioning ideas or suggestions from users that have little or no support. On the other hand, it is useful to have recognisable signs that a piece of text is AI-generated, so perhaps I should not express a hope that they may get better!

Computer programs don't find things out. They manipulate data they have been given by human beings. Though I suppose they might find connections between apparently disparate data that people have not noticed. I should have thought that in human affairs like the start of wars, which depend so much on intangibles like psychology, computers would struggle to predict odds accurately.

That's very interesting. So there was debate about the degree of presidential power between them at the time. I take @swansont 's point about the unforeseen complicity of both the Legislature and the top level of the Judiciary (though by no means the Judiciary as a whole). I suppose there's not much that one can do in a constitution to stop the former. The American people voted for the composition of Congress and they voted for, at the very least, running the risk of a dictatorship, despite ample warning from Trump's previous actions that that is what they would get. But I do think there is an advantage in having senior judicial appointments made, not by the Executive or the Legislature, but by a panel composed largely of their peers. I also think that what has happened in the US reveals the advantage in the British system of having the senior executives in government departments (i.e. ministers in the UK system) being required to report to Parliament to justify their decisions. They have to be members of Parliament to do that. The PM can't just appoint favourite TV personalities to run the government. But then again, the British constitution is not even written down but has evolved piecemeal, by largely unwritten convention. There is in principle little to stop a malevolent Prime Minister from overthrowing the conventions (we had a little taste of that with Bozo). I guess in the end, whether it is written or not, what ultimately matters is whether the people are sufficiently shocked by departures from the previously understood arrangements to object, in the media, in the streets and at the ballot box. It's the US people that have to wake up and vote, if they care enough about not living in an authoritarian future.

Except I think you made it up.