swansont

Dictated by a historian? Please. (and: providence? a contiguous story? Is this the malaprop channel?) The value isn’t dictated by the artist, per se. It’s not like artists can force their art to be valued. (see e.g. Van Gogh) It’s the people interested in the art that set the value. But if the value is intrinsic then there shouldn’t be a large disparity in who values it.

Where’s the value? Original art can be valuable. Copies much less so. What does that have to do with anything? Van Gogh isn’t considered great because of celebrity endorsements. I said nothing about closing one’s mind to all forms of musical expression. That’s not even close to what I expressed. That speaks to the role that uniqueness has, though. A dead artist won’t be making more of their art.

It doesn’t need to be that involved. The Beatles had/have a lot of fans, but others thought rock was just noise. There are people who are ambivalent about classical music from the masters. Not everyone loves opera. There’s no right or wrong involved.

How can personal preference be right or wrong?

Which god?

It’s likely that some fraction of the people will think your art sucks. That it has no value. Not worth looking at. Revolting, possiblt\y.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

! Moderator Note Such conjecture does not comply with the rules of speculations. Nope.

I’m not sure it has an intrinsic worth. The value is what people place on it. I’m sure there are people who wouldn’t pay $5 for the Mona Lisa to hang in their house, if they somehow were unable to give or sell it to anyone.

A lot of art is unique, or nearly so. And if it’s good, some people want it. Supply and demand.

Yes, you often get a gamma. There are exceptions; tritium is a notable one. (C-14 also, I think) That’s why tritium is used as a source for radioluminescent emergency exit signs

Simple. There isn’t, I stated that, and I never claimed there was. I said there is shift in mass, which there is - the slugs move and the platform will also. You can only do this once, since your slugs do not return to their original position. (It’s not a cycle, or ”loop”) If they did, the position would revert to the original.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion board, not your blog

F = dp/dt There is no external force, therefore there can be no change in momentum of the center of mass No blessing necessary, just understanding first-semester physics. Your setup does not specify that this happens, nor does it say which direction the balls rotate (if they are counter-rotating the platform will not rotate) but the rotation of the platform is irrelevant. You need to analyze this from a non-rotating frame of reference. Where the balls go relative to that frame’s coordinate system. You said the slugs are redirected 180 degrees. Now you are saying something different. You need to be more specific and consistent in your framing of the problem.

Nanotechnology would imply an electron microscope. An optical one lacks the necessary resolution

Zero. The platform will have moved up slightly, owing to the shift in the mass.

Any discussion of AI is a distraction. It’s irrelevant to the discussion.

Worse than what? If people died of a heart attack when they’re 50, they don’t have as much of a chance to get cancer. But if they avoid or survive that heart attack, which happens more these days, they can subsequently get cancer. All statistics have to be assessed with the understanding that overall mortality is always going to be 100%. If one number goes down, another one has to go up.

I don’t suppose you can make any specific predictions or have any evidence to present?

I recall something from long ago called the GRAS list - Generally Recognized As Safe (in the US) https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras I think older substances were grandfathered in, if they’d been used for a long time with no known issues. But newer additives had to undergo safety studies

Years. You also have to determine the proper dose; each early step might test for 6 months to a year, and phase III is multiple years. There’s likely administrative delays between the steps as you line up participants. “There is no typical length of time it takes for a drug to be tested and approved. It might take 10 to 15 years or more to complete all 3 phases of clinical trials before the licensing stage. But this time span varies a lot.” https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/how-clinical-trials-are-planned-and-organised/how-long-it-takes-for-a-new-drug-to-go-through-clinical-trials

You have to test for efficacy and safety; ethics requires small trials before large ones.

For me it’s Overcome By Events —- Why should dying be an identical (or nearly so) event for everyone? Strange for British English to drop a vowel like that. One expects extra ones.

As CharonY pointed out, progress necessarily slows as the numbers go up. Another possible confounding factor is that as survivability goes up, your chances of getting some new cancer goes up (you can’t get a second case if you’re dead) and mortality from that is likely going to be higher, if just from being older. Until you can actually eliminate cancer, you’re stuck with this, since everybody has to die of something.

Cousin Mallory (no relation)