Genady

Not so. Observable universe - Wikipedia:

To convert a YouTube video to a well-organized written article.

Go to Google Search or Bing. Copy and paste your question. Click Enter.

When I google your question verbatim, I get in the first two results the following: 1. Boosted fission weapon - Wikipedia 2. 4.3 Fission-Fusion Hybrid Weapons (nuclearweaponarchive.org) Do they answer your question?

This is another factor to add to the list. I've never heard of “ship track” clouds. First, we've added them, now we remove them: ‘We’re changing the clouds.’ An unforeseen test of geoengineering is fueling record ocean warmth | Science | AAAS

But we could wipe ourselves with Brezhnev portrait any time.

They were the two most circulated and subscribed to, mainly because people were often forced to subscribe to them. They were not most read though. But they were most used as substitution for non-exist toilet paper.

There were more than two. About half dozen central ones, and many regional, professional, special interest etc. A representative, albeit partial list can be found here: Printed media in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

Why the answer you get by searching the web is insufficient?

I didn't notice this.

Good news, for whatever reason, (from the Marine Park report) "The 2023 sargassum season invasion was approximately 30 days compared to 51 days in 2022."

Right. However, it does not answer my question: what does make one to conclude that greenhouse gases alone don't cause all the problems. As in What makes one to think that it is also something else? IOW, that greenhouse gases alone are not enough to cause all the problems.

What was the cause of that? Did that change in the last ~100 years? What did cause that? Did that change in the last ~100 years? Overall, how much of effect these factors have compared to the greenhouse gases?

Why not?

If I consider one of the simplest animals, a sponge, I will have to play with words to fit it into the definition of machine. It is just not what that definition describes.

Sorry, I don't understand what "modified yes plus" means. What I mean is that an animal is not "an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task."

Then, by this definition of 'machine', the answer to my question is, no.

Do you define machine as a mechanical device?

I agree. I see one motive for doing it being experimental testing of our understanding of the animal.

Yes, the process was different. What does this fact say about the result? The same or similar results can be achieved via different processes, I think.

Aren't animals the biochemical machines?

Yes. The choice depends on the intended use. For example, when discussing 'force' in physics and in politics, different definitions of the term 'force' are used.

Just for the background, these are more than decade old news: Qbo Robot Passes Mirror Test, Is Therefore Self-Aware - IEEE Spectrum Robot learns to recognise itself in mirror - BBC News

Good. I can empty my ignore list again. My wishful thinking agrees with the previous post.

Support local businesses.