swansont

Fundamental bosons are not matter. Can you show that they are unaffected by time? W and Z have mass, so they do not travel at c.

Slow recharging would help with that, too. Full discharge of the battery might be a factor; IIRC NiCd batteries preferred that.

My guess would be swapping rather than waiting to recharge, leading to quicker turnaround, for when this goes into service.

Clicking on post count takes you to your posts

They don’t mention what load was being hauled, and how that would affect the range.

Moderator NoteA youtube video is not a reasonable substitute for a link to some credible medical/psychology source (e.g the AMA or APA in the US) or a textbook or journal. Searching on that phrase gives pretty much only that one person’s youtube videos. That’s not credible, in terms of establishing it as part of the mainstream, and speculations can only be discussed in that forum.

With all due respect, asking for this sort of clarification is completely reasonable. It’s a discussion forum, not a personal chat.

This seems like a complete non-sequitur, as you have not posted here in a year and a half, and there doesn’t seem to be any accusation against you.

That’s not what Dawkins meant by the selfish gene

Possibly, but we’ve not detected any thus far.

This assumes it’s a genetic and heritable trait. And even if it is, it could involve a recessive gene that confers some advantage if you only have one copy.

When I click my avatar it takes me to my profile, where I can click to see my content (activity) If you click the post count below it, it takes you there directly

But having a gene to survive one malady might mean susceptibility to something else, and a gene that makes you susceptible to one could be really good protection against another, as with (or similar to) malaria. One issue here is trying to make simplistic arguments (e.g. movie-plot threat arguments like War of the Worlds) about a complex system.

Science has been wrong, but it’s corrected by better science — better evidence showing the flaws of the original theory, and a better model arises. Religion and mysticism didn’t step in with the better theory. As for acceptance, yes. Scientists are human, not robots. We do have personal biases and other weaknesses. New ideas take time to sink in. But even that doesn’t fully address the issue. Scientists are skeptics, and so it’s not just evidence, but the amount of evidence, because statistical flukes happen, and you want to be convinced that it’s not a fluke, or that there’s not some other explanation for the data.

Yes, we agree on the math, but the way you phrased it sounded like we’re not doing anything (or much) to treat adult diseases. We are doing a lot. Vaccines train your body to respond, granting increased immunity, but without running the risks of actually getting the disease. It strengthens your immune system.

This is a woefully under-specified question. You would need to understand the cognitive/neurological details of intuition before trying to tie it back to QM. Ultimately you would find QM at the basic level, but there’s so many layers above that to be considered.

What previous ones changed the life of everyone? I think the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine being available in a one-year time frame was life-changing. What constitutes a breakthrough? Would Nobel prizes count? We could discuss the impact of various Nobels. Are you talking about science or technology? “More pixels” is more the latter. Technology is usually the combination of a lot of scientific elements so it’s not likely you’ll see all of them being discovered at once. There can be one enabling discovery that allows for a significant advance — all of the other parts were there — but most of the time progress is incremental, like with more pixels. Depends. I did government R&D, and the project was assigned (it existed and the team members were hired to work on it) and we cared about progress/results because that’s how continued funding was justified. In commercial research there is a focus on money because that’s how you stay in business, but of course they care about progress because you have to make a product to sell. Academic research has no profit. Quality research increases the chances for grants.

It had a big impact, but it’s not like there was no impact on adult life expectancy. Here’s an example: life expectancy of a 20 y.o. in England and Wales was ~60 in 1850. It’s now >20 years longer https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages But you have yet to explain why you think there’s a cost. You didn’t frame this as investigating what downside there might be, and whenever you’ve been asked for clarification you’ve dodged the question.

If you believe but think there’s a better way, do you really believe? If yes, then this is the free will thing; you decided to not follow the rules

I recall someone arguing that freewill is how <deity in question> can justify sending you to hell or other bad things to you. It was your choice. You can’t force someone to believe, because then it’s not belief (so I agree with Hitchens on that) but it’s not blackmail IMO because if you don’t believe you don’t think you’re going to hell If I can play God’s advocate for a moment: I think the counterargument is that this does not follow, since maybe it could have been even worse. It falls under the “God works in mysterious ways/part of God’s plan“ umbrella which can’t be falsified

m_m has been banned at their request for sockpuppetry; previous incarnations probably mar_mar and mar_mar2

Like the other six data points that show similar excesses. The ones at 111 GeV show an even stronger deviation. Your speculation is built upon this more fundamental speculation, and we don’t allow that — you need to provide evidence of this model first. Good luck, since we already have the failure of the electron to adhere to it.

IANAL but how do you claim ownership over something you willingly released into the public/common space of the ocean and river? With cattle AFAIK you get a permit for grazing on government land and there’s some amount of tending of the herd. I think you’d need international law to cover it for fishing. (good luck with that)

How does it make you susceptible? You’re not as susceptible to the pathogen when you’re vaccinated. People decided to stop getting the measles vaccine, and now lots of kids are getting the measles. 3 confirmed deaths in the US, with 1356 cases (92% unvaccinated or unknown status) as of Aug 6. >20% of kids under 5 had to be hospitalized. https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html “herd susceptibility” is just being unvaccinated. How would you become more susceptible than that?

We have a tendency to want things to fit into convenient categories, so such duality will arise when that doesn’t happen. Such categorization might work most of the time but nature is messy and doesn’t always conform to these simple characterizations. So the exceptions are interesting, but we shouldn’t make a fuss over the existence of them