swansont

! Moderator Note The Bible is not a scientific resource. Neither is AI. This is a science discussion board and this nonsense has no place here.

In industrialized countries, perhaps. There are a lot of people who don’t have access to clean water or safe food, or decent medical care, or even electricity.

Musk vs Bezos inequality misses the point. A rich king sitting on a pile of gold and jewels in olden times had the same issue of having money that would never be spent. That’s the case with inherited wealth. It’s why their heirs were also rich. So do the very rich.

! Moderator Note This topic was closed. You don’t get to start up a new one

! Moderator Note What is it you want to discuss? Your rambling does not make it clear.

Tell me you’re a troll without saying you’re a troll.

The issue was souls, and the fact that we don’t know the details of dark matter or dark energy doesn’t mean anything regarding souls. That’s on par with saying we don’t know what a particular light in the sky is and concluding it’s an alien. We didn’t know the details of the composition of the nucleus 100 years ago. It takes time to figure things out.

Please don’t use the report post function, or PMs, to request we fix trivial typographic errors. If you can no longer edit your post either live with the pain of having typed it’s instead of its (or whatever), or, if you must, quote yourself and respond with the correct version. Most of the time people will know what you meant. If they don’t, they can ask for clarification.

True but completely beside the point. Did you really think anyone was think wealth inequality was Musk vs. Bezos? And again, it is not obvious to me this is true. Merely asserting it is not sufficient Must can buy basically anything he wants, that can be bought, and there’s much, much more that you can buy these days. A person who can buy almost nothing, but nothing is still nothing - that hasn’t changed.

Yeah, the Hg spectral lines are in the UV and blue half of the visible spectrum, with nothing in the red, and then IR 184.5 nm, 253.7 nm, 365.4 nm, 404.7 nm, 435.8 nm, 546.1 nm, 578.2 nm and 1014 nm.

The radius is not measured, since it doesn’t physically exist. The precision stems from being able to measure the mass.

The classical electron radius is not the actual size of the electron A clue should be the use of “classical” in the name, while the electron is a quantum particle. Classical concepts have a habit of failing when QM comes into play As the article says, “It links the classical electrostatic self-interaction energy of a homogeneous charge distribution to the electron's relativistic mass-energy”

No doubt a possible factor. I know that processing out when I retired had months of lead time, and it was probably 6-7 months from putting in paperwork until they got the disbursements right. (4 before and 3 after. They start with a guess to get the retirement pay flowing, then adjust when they finalize the numbers) The system still consults paper files and there’s always a backlog. I imagine the SSA has similar issues. I had a comparable experience when I joined the navy. “placeholder” pay for a while until I was in the system and the numbers got properly crunched.

The interest earned by holding on to your money is vey small. Most government paperwork takes time, especially if understaffed from budget starvation. Why would this be any different? Hanlon’s Razor probably applies: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence

It’s also a regressive tax if it becomes a requirement to do anything; you force people with little disposable income to have one, and internet access.

No. Having unanswered questions does not mean a theory is wrong. In this case, physics takes us back to about 10^-43 sec after the big bang. And reconciliation of GR with QM is held up because GR is a classical theory, so why not point your finger at that? QM works really well where it’s applicable. (and if you are using ChatGPT please review the rules, particularly 2.13, which limits the use of ChatGPT and its siblings)

You keep missing the mark. You might have provided evidence of intelligence, but that’s not evidence of purpose. That connection is only your conjecture. And, as promised, we’re done here.

! Moderator Note Which means don’t bring up the topic elsewhere. A post telling us that you’re going to post something soon is pointless.

I guess I wasn’t clear enough: the problem is “more than random chance reactions” I thought that would be obvious, since nobody argues that life isn’t complex, but that’s too much to expect, I guess, even though your agenda of insisting on it been a recurring issue across multiple threads. ANY suggestion that there’s “something more” requires evidence, or the thread gets sent to the trash can, since that’s not science.

Even less if you have to drive some distance to get it. (I saw a story recently about people driving an hour each way to save $2 on some artisanal bread. I hope they were buying a half-dozen loaves)

You can’t store all of those unique values if your discretization doesn’t allow it. The example shows 12 x values, but only 6 unique y values (though 9 are possible*, some data points have the same y value) It’s possible that there are 12 unique y values in the raw measurement, but only 6 are recorded. *100, 75, 50 25, 0, -25, -50, -75, -100

! Moderator Note You’ve presented no evidence of this, and if that’s your pitch, you can’t sneak it in (along with any attempt to advance your notions of cognition). Argument from incredulity is not evidence. If it’s not, then why bring it up? I’m sure the biological community will be shocked that cells have electrical, magnetic and chemical interactions, since we’ve only known about that for many, many decades. Being new to you carries no weight.

This does not rule out that the problem is you

Do you see a connection between people not liking ai and a publisher not declaring that a book is ai? Traditional printing is cheaper per book…if you print a certain number of books. There’s overhead to the process. Say it costs $10000 to print 1000 books. (that’s $10 a book, but there’s a setup cost, so the first book costs, say $5000, and then it’s $5 a book after that.) You need that money up front, and you need to sell 100 of them to break even, which takes some time. You could print more books and the cost per book drops, but you’re betting you sell them all. If they don’t sell, you lose money. Print-on-demand could cost $20, but you profit $20 from the very first copy.

Cameras might help catch the perp after the fact, but that doesn’t prevent the accident in the first place. Is there any credible evidence that red-light cams deterred infractions? We know it encouraged fraud from the companies contracted to run them The one previous systematic review of RLCs found that they were effective in reducing total casualty crashes but also found that evidence on the effectiveness of cameras on red light violations, total crashes, or specific types of casualty crashes was inconclusive. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356316/