exchemist

Wot dat?

I agree. Anyone citing a document should have read at least the abstract. If not, they can’t know whether it supports their argument or not, so it’s just a bad faith bluff. That it has been put forward as relevant by an LLM is not good enough. Maybe indeed checking citations is a good way to smoke out botshit. I’m chary of the idea of insisting on maths, though. That works for a mathematical science like physics but would not be appropriate for biology or geology, say.

Yes I don’t suggest the ant would burst, just that its insides could become blocked and it would starve from lack of nutrition or something. But I’m only speculating.

I don't think anyone has suggested that. The point about LLMs is they are "stochastic parrots", that cannot reason, but instead simply report results based on the statistically most widespread opinions they have encountered in their training data set. So you cannot rely on LLMs to do maths or make deductions.

Dust fibres, probably.

Einstein had nothing to do with any nuclear programme. That is what all the historical evidence shows. Your “belief” is unfounded. If you persist with this story of yours it needs a prominent disclaimer at the start to make clear it describes an alternative, entirely fictional, history. There are already far too many falsehoods attached to the name of Einstein. Your attitude,, preferring unfounded “belief” to fact, is symptomatic of one of the great curses of our new internet age. You are not entitled to make up your own version of events, just because that’s the way you prefer them to be.

Yes, I think it's the reborn idea: "..no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit..." And in the Prologue to St John's gospel it says "to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God (implicitly through spiritual rebirth at baptism). Also, in the Beatitudes, the peacemakers "shall be called children of God". And more generally, God the Father is so called in part because he is the creator of everything, including mankind. Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium. So it seems to be fairly pervasive imagery in Christianity.

Amen to that. It's clear these walls of text are not written by the poster, are very tedious to read and generally disguise rather poor ideas. Lipstick on a pig, in many cases.

So interaction with the vacuum rather than interference. OK.

Agree with the general sentiment but, on one point of detail, do we not now treat spontaneous emission as due to interaction of the atom with vacuum fluctuations?

I read this thread and burst out laughing. There's a sort of Spinal Tap quality to it.

Interesting. Perhaps his son was the last straw then that triggered Musk to “come out” as the nazi he secretly was all along. But it does not seem coincidence that within 6 months of his son’s announcement Musk had bought Twitter, sacked the moderation staff and embarked on a series of high profile far right activities, not just in the US but concerning Europe too. All very odd, counterproductive behaviour for a maker of EVs. But, back to your observation about Silicon Valley, I realise Peter Thiel is on record as expressing contempt for democracy. And it seems Zuckerberg has also run up the Jolly Roger, promoting a new, snarling macho persona, quite at odds with how he used to present himself. So yeah, there does seem to be a lot of it about among the tech bros.

That’s why I wondered about surface tension. Burping may be impossible if you are so small that you can’t break the surface tension on a bubble in your gut. But I agree “exploding” ants seems a bit of an, er, stretch.

What is fascinating? Most of us, including me, cannot read Chinese characters so please quote the posts you are responding to in English.

Are you able to discuss any of this, in your own words?

So what? The Easterlin paradox seems to have nothing to do with referenda.

As @swansont points out, this does not seem to have anything to do with the thread topic, let alone the points I have made. Can you explain its relevance?

One obvious problem is the presence of a low kinetic energy central core. There is no such structure observed in the cosmos.

OK so not that then.

You offered an opinion based on AI, without doing the homework of reading the background. And surprise surprise, what you posted was therefore wrong. You posted botshit, in fact.

I suggest you read the report, then, or the synopses of it that have appeared in the media:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gy78gpnqo QUOTE The switches were returned to their normal inflight position, triggering automatic engine relight. At the time of the crash, one engine was regaining thrust while the other had relit but had not yet recovered power. UNQUOTE Who knows more about this subject: the people who wrote the report or you?

We’ve been over this before. It’s obviously unworkable, due to the number and the complexity of the issues a government has to resolve. Most people won’t have the time, the expertise or the interest to make informed choices. Furthermore, your idea runs the obvious risk that on-line referenda might be hijacked by coteries of activists, leading to highly unrepresentative outcomes. Forget it.

According to the report, the error was recognised and both engines re-lit before impact, though neither was able to spool up and develop enough thrust in time.

If there is an undercarriage retraction switch, say, that is similar, one might perhaps engage the wrong muscle memory if distracted. But we shall have to see what further analysis reveals, I suppose.

You may be confusing baking soda with baking powder. The latter is a mix of baking soda and tartaric acid which, when wetted will immediately start to react and evolve CO2. Baking soda on its own, however, won’t react when wet, only when acid is introduced. From what I read, ants eat sugar mixed with baking powder and the acid in their digestive system then triggers gas production. This apparently kills them. I’m not sure how but surface tension is a big deal for tiny insects, so maybe bubbles form that block their system or something. Someone else here may know. You need the sugar to persuade the ants to eat the stuff.