swansont

The thing is, if you live in a town or city, you probably don't have a job farming. Those people live on the farm. It's not high-density labor employment (you were asked for numbers. Where are they?) Besides fishing and farming and a couple of stores to supply them with what they need, what else would attract people to work there? (You could be a novelist and live in Cabot Cove, because you can do that anywhere, but personally I'd keep away from a place like that because of all the murders) If you attract a bunch of other businesses to the town, employing a lot of people, then it's not a small town anymore. And some companies are going to demand/require infrastructure. Power, roads, etc. A supply of labor, possibly skilled labor. And if a lot of people live there, the rental costs are going to go up, because of supply and demand.

From what I've read the power requirement is tens of watts (i.e. several milliamps at tens of kV) for the basic lifter, which isn't very massive, but you need to lift a payload to carry the power supply. This paper mentions a lift of less than 5N/m^2, and a maximum efficiency of ~70 N/kW (and they mention getting higher geometrical lift at the expense of a lower electrical efficiency) https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4890353 So it's quite likely that nobody has built a lifter that can lift its own power supply for any appreciable length of time. You can characterize this as insufficient power being the problem, or as insufficient thrust being the problem.

Unfortunately, those of us in the US weren’t able to dismiss him out of hand. And yet his administration’s response seems to not have much to do with the information he got, since he largely ignored it and did almost nothing. Which is one reason I want to know why it would have mattered knowing the details of how the virus originally spread. Would Trump have done a different kind of nothing? Would governors have changed their push to repeatedly reopen too soon? Would they have done something different in avoiding mask mandates? How were these decisions based on the WHO's investigation?

I don’t see an analogy in the post, and no, “employability” does not reflect poorly on the discipline. Colleges/universities are not vocational schools (can you get a job doing e.g. English Literature or Art History? Are there a lot of professional philosophers out there, just philosophizing?), and employability is impacted by supply and demand, among other factors.

I didn’t ask you anything about the WHO, so it’s ludicrous to claim that this is an answer to my question.

That does not follow. Costs are different. Math matters. You’re basically saying a burger that costs $5.66 vs $6.37 isn’t a factor in turning a profit. (cost of a Big Mac in Sweden vs USA) https://www.statista.com/statistics/274326/big-mac-index-global-prices-for-a-big-mac/

I’m sure that’s an answer to a question, but it’s not an answer to my question.

Again, what does this change? I fail to see how this informs a pandemic strategy. Is the strategy different in the three cases? (leak, natural, don’t know) What do you do differently? We did what for Iraq? What does Iraq have to do with this? Not really a thing in this kind of discussion.

That wasn’t really the point; you can’t compare two countries without normalizing the numbers for cost of living, and other factors. In Denmark, $20/hr is a living wage because of the cost of living and their social safety net. In the US, $15 might be. “Scandinavia pays $20/hr for fast food workers not eliminated all hesitation at raising the minimum wage at least to 15?” lacks that context. There are undoubtedly countries where $15 would be higher than the cost of living.

It's fusion, which nobody has yet made work. One (or in this case literally you) really can't say he has "developed" this technology. It's the generic "you" and my objection was that people are suggesting that conclusion. Your personal view is irrelevant, as my original comment predated your contribution to the thread. But "the question remains open" is too forgiving. If you see hoofprints, you do not say the question is open as to whether zebras (or aliens) made the prints, if you are in North America. The question is not open unless you actually have some evidence that leads you in that direction. You go with the best science available, which is horses. Based on what definition of viable? viable: capable of working successfully, feasible How can you say something is capable of working successfully if it's never been shown to work successfully? (feasible is even worse; possible to do easily or conveniently - nothing easy or convenient about it)

It would depend on the cost of living, wouldn’t it? It’s more expensive to live in Denmark; you might conclude that wages would be necessarily be higher there for similar jobs https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/United-States/Cost-of-living

But you only mentioned farming. Why wouldn’t these business be located in or nearby the coastal town where the fishing is taking place? What does this have to do with big-city rent?

No, in fact, I don’t. You need to mean what you say, and not put the burden of parsing it to people reading. What you claimed to be true is not true in Sweden, and therefore not true in Scandinavia. So you presented a falsehood, which makes it difficult to understand what you mean.

Was supply and demand not considered? How many farming jobs are involved here?

How much would it cost to build and maintain?

You’re ignoring the context of the post, which was paraphrasing what the article was saying. And I conclusively stated the article is saying that nobody was asserting they were aliens And if you admit you don’t know, you can’t conclude they are aliens. And yet that wasn’t accepted as being true earlier in the thread. If you pursue it here, however, you don’t get a pass on scientific rigor.

To what end? What changes if we determine an outcome like natural outbreak or accidental release from a lab studying the virus?

Show that this will make a difference in some calculation. How would this difference in actual vs apparent angular position cast doubt on distances and sizes?

"Using Newton's Laws" and "using Newton's laws correctly" are two different claims. There is no "alternative mass" and "alternative acceleration" This is just an excuse to do the analysis incorrectly.

The report did not claim they were aliens. They aren't aliens until someone conclusively proves they are. Compelling is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody has claimed that this is the case. A straw man, so to speak. An interesting correlation, but probably not for the reason you are implying. Instead of seeing e.g. ghosts when they saw a shimmering light, people started seeing flying saucers, because that's a name they could put to the unexplained sightings. A patent does not mean that such a device has been built, or guarantees that it works in the way envisioned.

Not actually what you said, and why I asked for clarification. 2 for 1 is not tit-for-tat, and you'd already established that it's an eye for an eye. No escalation.

This is more you're adding to the discussion. You said an eye for an eye was justice. And then said tit-for-tat had to be two eyes for one. I don't know where that came from. There's a whole bunch of subtext you seem to be skipping over.

Go ahead and apply entropy to this, then. Work through the physics (not just with a hand-wave incantation with a magic wand)

Because they take energy from the BH. Energy is conserved in the process, which is why the BH evaporates. You keep saying that as if it were a valid scientific principle. There are no inefficiencies in the creation and destruction of virtual particles (or real ones, for that matter), and stating something to the contrary does not make it true.

When will WHAT happen? The title of this thread is "Will America EVER achieve immortality?" which really doesn't make sense because America is either a continent or a country, and immortality really applies to neither one. The context of your post implies you are asking if humanity will ever achieve immortality; it's really short-sighted to think only one country would work on or achieve this. Appeal to conspiracy doesn't advance your argument This is a science site and you insist on discussing science fiction, and seemingly have no interest in learning or discussing actual science. That might be a contributing factor.