swansont

And a complicit majority on SCOTUS, who might just create some power out of thin air, as they’ve done before. Section 4 CongressClause 1 Elections Clause The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/ Laws are already on the books making election day uniform (second Tuesday in November). Most states have some form of early voting, but those rules are up to the states The 20th amendment says when congress is to be sworn in, and the elections have to be certified, so I don’t see much leeway in moving the date later, but who knows what SCOTUS would say, but how clueless can they be if there’s a pissed-off electorate? I think screwing with elections won’t play well with even Republican voters, outside of super-hardcore MAGAts.

It’s more like what you discuss at 2AM in a chemically-altered state. “Not a full theory” is an understatement. It’s the thinnest of veneers, and what is needed is depth. I don’t know what the disconnect is, the requirements of speculations have been explained to you several times and you’re not understanding or just ignoring them. You can go back to your previous threads on this subject and you’ll see them.

Not a lot of space at 10^-43 sec after the BB, and who said space was empty?

I’m pretty sure there’s no legal avenue for this to happen. Not that Trump won’t try something illegal. But it’s not happened before, even during the Civil War. Martial law doesn’t suspend the Constitution and congress sets the date of federal elections. Almost a majority of people who voted. Trump isn’t on the ballot and dissatisfied people who didn’t vote in ‘24 might be motivated to show up

It’s…not good. What are the laws made of, and what is space made of that you can embed the laws in them? Do you actually understand how a hologram works? So spacetime is a substance? What’s it made of? What can it predict? How can it be tested?

There’s a lot to unpack. The densest forests have less than 75k trees per square km https://worldpopulationreview.com/metrics/how-many-trees-are-in-the-world “Countries with the densest tree cover in trees per square kilometer: Finland (72,644) Slovenia (71,131) Sweden (69,161) Taiwan (62,975) Brunei (62,333)…”

Yes. There are lasers that use frequency-doubling crystals, such as a 1064 nm (IR) pump laser that gives 532 nm (green) light. (Usually the 1064 is filtered out, but cheap ones had poor filters and were dangerous because there’s no blink reflex, and doubling is not efficient so there was a lot of that light.)

The issue is how one would test this. We can only confirm what we can experimentally observe.

Moderator NoteRules require that material for discussion be actually posted here. Not via links or uploads.

In the US some contractors who controlled the red-light cameras were found to have adjusted the timing so the amber was shorter than required by statute. Invalidated a lot of tickets.

Or worse, just reflexively covering your mouth/face from a yawn, cough or sneeze

This schtick is getting old.

I’m guessing this is machine learning rather than LLM-driven. Pattern recognition of seatbelts and not having two hands on the wheel, etc., like facial recognition. I wonder how easily it would be fooled by the t-shirts that display a shoulder seatbelt, or generates false positives from unexpected situations. I hope it’s been sufficiently vetted, rather than using initial deployment as a beta-test. I also assume they send the image of the alleged infraction to you so you can potentially challenge it. (Reminds me of a Columbo episode where he figured out a traffic camera was being spoofed; he realized that there was no shadow under the perp’s nose, so it must have been a picture, thus denying the perp an alibi)

Nah. There’s a whole section on PornHub showing that sort of thing.

Oh, please. “some see God in every day life.” is subjective. The evidence of climate change and the benefit of vaccines is objective. Not understanding it or being motivated to look into it, or whatever, is the issue. The objective evidence actually exists. Comparing it with religion is intellectual bankruptcy.

If you’d read the rules you agreed to follow, you’d know that all material for discussion must be posted - not via links or uploads. Also that using AI is a dealbreaker — we have no desire to wade through that slop.

Seconded. Technology is a unique metric for thriving/progress, and a very human-centric. Like a tall person insisting that height is the true measure of human value. Bacteria might insist on population as being the proper measure of progress. ETA: you suggest technology as a metric; our technology has allowed us to live in environments not hospitable to naked apes. Some organisms evolved such capability

Having opposable thumbs has helped greatly in making tools. A significant part of our issues with water pressure is we breathe atmospheric air, which most sea-dwellers do not. I think pressure is somewhat less of an issue than you imply. But if atmospheric pressure were increased that would mean an increase in gravity (and/or other environmental changes), and yes, that would have affected evolution

The math is the hard part. Not because math is hard, or needs to be complicated. But it allows for specific predictions, which we require, to allow for comparison with experiment. But you don’t have it, so this is closed

You need to identify what this substance is. How it’s detected, what the experimental evidence for it is, etc.

It’s like trying put a queen-sized fitted sheet on a king-sized bed. You get one corner on and another comes undone. IOW it’s likely to fail once you try to make it work with the rest of physics, and if so, it’s wrong. Energy is a property of things, so (like studiot) I’d like to see the actual statement and context.

Did the address whether you will know, when the rain washes you clean?

The consensus is no mass because that’s what the evidence says. Considering only the photon shows the problem; physics has a lot of moving parts and they mesh fairly well, so you can’t only look at a subset of it when considering such a broad topic.

“When is it satisfied?” can be addressed with some simple algebra. But you need to show you’ve tried to solve it first; we don’t just do homework problems for others. That doesn’t help anyone learn

What, precisely, needs explaining? Does ot have to do with the philosophy behind it, or the science?