exchemist

Except I think you made it up.

Yes but there is nuance here. Components can get withdrawn on a precautionary principle without real evidence of harm and sometimes for what seem to be public relations reasons due to doubtful but popularised allegations of risk. The weedkiller glyphosate is an example. That is no longer available at my local garden centre, all the brands that used it having been reformulated due to popular pressure, even though it is considered by regulatory authorities not to pose a risk in normal use. The arguments are often borderline, regarding max safe concentrations. That may be the case with your coal tar soap. My guess would be that you will get more exposure to benzene when refilling your car at the pump than you will from any hair product.

No. If you know anything about the bible (do you, actually?) you will know it is large collection of books, for example the book of Isaiah, or the book of Kings. And within each book, there are divisions into chapters and then into verses within each chapter. So if you make the rather surprising claim that the bible includes a verse according to which God says he made the moon so that people would have something to worship, you need to be able to support that claim by quoting the book, chapter and verse in which it can be found. You cannot expect readers to read the whole bible just to see if your claim is true.

What book, what chapter, and what verse?

Perhaps you have heard the expression,” Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the mid day sun”? To put it more scientifically, I think you need first to disentangle the effect of social behaviour from skin tone. In the Med, the locals generally don’t lie around on the beach getting burnt, like the tourists from N Europe. They stay inside in the heat of the day. Another confounding factor may be genetic skin tone vs. acquired skin tone. My son, whose mother was French, can tolerate longer in the sun than me, a Brit with a tendency to freckles. Also he tans much faster than me. So he may have inherited a better natural resistance to skin damage from UV. I think if you have naturally light skin it is dangerous for you to imagine that you can rely on progressive tanning as a substitute for sun cream. But I would agree that a little gentle exposure, to give you a light tan, without ever burning, may give you a bit more of a safety net than hiding away from the sun completely - which almost nobody does anyway. In fact I’ve a feeling I read a recommendation that effect quite recently, but I can’t remember where.

Yeah yeah.

I've had fried slices of plantain for breakfast all over S America. Quite nice I thought, like a starchy and not very sweet banana, a bit chewy but not unpleasantly so. But heavy - you don't need a lot.

Sure, but they invested tremendous power in one man. He seems able to hire and fire at will, with no reasons given, and to be able to make executive orders without any check. I realise the Legislature technically has to approve appointments to senior positions, so it's arguably their failure that Trump can appoint to the government people with no qualifications or experience. But he can appoint Supreme Court judges, so the Judiciary is not really independent - and the President controls the officers responsible for enforcing court orders.

Yes, so I have read. However they are still programmed to engage the user in further chat, aren't they? So while they may be less obviously sycophantic, they will still be biased to give +ve reinforcement to the user in his ideas.

So you've made up that thing about worshipping the moon, haven't you?

But a significant part of the new problem is it is the chatbot that is giving them the overconfidence, as it is programmed to reward the user by telling them how clever they are, to keep them engaged.

What verse is that?

Yes indeed. Actually we had a thread on this just recently: https://scienceforums.net/topic/136533-vibe-physics-aka-why-we-wont-tolerate-ai-use/#comment-1294686 But since then further examples of the genre have appeared. It looks like the beginnings of a wave of physics cranks, all implacably convinced they are geniuses and hence impervious to criticism, because the chatbot has egged them on. My worry is that with all these pay-to-publish “vanity” journals on the web, the chatbots will take this deluge of crank material into their datasets and may start regurgitating it, spawning even more cranks!

I have no idea whether the observation that follows is in any way original and I advance it with temerity, not being a US citizen, but it is something that has struck me due to a book I am reading on the lead up to the English Civil War.https://www.historytoday.com/archive/review/blood-winter-jonathan-healey-review It is notable that at the time it was the monarch who ran the government, appointed ministers and took or endorsed the decisions they made. Parliament's job was chiefly concerned with approving taxation. Watching the shocking ease with which Trump is able to turn the USA into an absolute, capricious monarchy, it occurred to me that the basics were perhaps already in place, due to the way the founders set up the President as the head of the government. France did something similar after the French Revolution. It is as if these early Republics moulded the office of President loosely on the monarchs they were intended to replace, with a lot of the same powers, though supposedly better controlled by a Legislature. In England - later Britain - after the Civil War, the power as head of government made a gradual transition away from the monarch and towards the chief minister, who by then was an elected member of Parliament, not really appointed by the monarch (though a fig leaf of monarchical "approval" was retained for the sake of tradition). In the later republics, notably those brought into being after WW II, they opted instead for a symbolic role for the President as Head of State, while the head of the government was the leader of an elected parliamentary party, as in the UK. So I wonder if this quasi-monarchical position of the President of the USA (and France) now looks something of an anachronism, mimicking the monarchs of 4 centuries ago to an undue degree. As an aside, we in Britain are used to being teased about our quaint and old-fashioned monarchy. But actually I now wonder if our system is not more modern than that in the USA! This is a thought that would never have occurred to me until recent events.

Let me guess; you have seen the writing on the wall and are retraining to be an AI chatbot.😄

By green banana do you mean plantain?

Heh heh. Very good. You’re a pro. 😁

Yes it was more the excessively flowery language: "paradigm" when it is just a scenario, "become extant"when it means occur or come to pass. I dunno but we seem to get a lot of posts now with this kind of grandiose verbiage.

Post some examples then, to substantiate what you are claiming. Don’t try to send your readers off to find substantiation, themselves, for your claim.

I'm not sure what we are dealing with here. "If the above predation paradigm to actually become extant" etc.

Chat on a single internet forum is not evidence the subject is one “of much debate” in science. For that statement to be true, one would expect to find numerous research papers , or articles in the scientific press, supporting and contesting the theory or hypothesis. You seem to be making up statements here.

There used to be a cafe near me that proudly advertised its retox breakfast, at weekends. I think this was aimed mainly at young men, rugby players and rowers etc. It was of course the traditional English fry-up (eggs, bacon, black pudding etc).

Some silly people get obsessed with shit being “dirty” and want to “clean” out their systems, I think. It seems to me to be a terrible idea, seeing as the microflora in your gut are essential to your health. But maybe I’m too sceptical. Let’s see what others think.

Re section highlighted, I was unaware of this debate. It sounds interesting. Can you link to some sources illustrating this debate?

The "special" in special relativity just means it applies to certain simple cases. It came first historically. General relativity came later and is much harder to work with but, as the name indicates, applies far more generally. I suggest a little bit of reading about the subject.