swansont

! Moderator Note Advertising is not permitted here. Link removed Further, claiming that “many psychiatrists believe that scientists' work is useless, that science itself is pointless, and that no one needs to do anything” absolutely requires supporting material.

popularized, not coined “The term "bug" has been used in engineering and electronics for a while before the era of modern computing. Notable inventor Thomas Edison is known to have used the term "bug" to describe a technical malfunction in his works in the late 19th century, as noted in Princeton's Thomas Edison Papers.” https://www.dbvis.com/thetable/why-are-they-called-bugs/

Several of your equations do not appear to be dimensionally consistent. And you have variables that are not well-defined. Giving actual solutions to a common problem using them (with numbers and units) would be very helpful. And there’s a whole lot of word salad.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=venezuela+corruption

Citation needed True for most for-profit research Generics are generally much cheaper than the patented drugs were before the patent expired.

Or how earthquakes are no big deal in some parts of the world because barely anybody dies.

Lower cancer rate and probably less infrastructure. Can’t really spend on cancer research if you don’t have research facilities and staff to run them, and train researchers.

Let’s see your calculation, then. That’s not what your equations say. You claim that “mass increases due to strong and gravitational potentials, while it decreases due to Electromagnetic potential” so why is it that the mass of deuterium is smaller than the mass of a proton + neutron?

! Moderator Note 1. There’s no models supporting any of this, so there’s not enough for this to be discussed in speculations 2. One idea per topic is a much better approach; this is a discussion forum, and multiple ideas make for messy discussions

I don’t accept that this is a true statement. What do you mean by “cells prepared in the laboratory”? It’s a very vague description. in vitro cell preparation, for example, uses living cells.

Exactly. And something that can’t be sourced in the 100+ years it takes to get to market. Nothing like investing a fortune only to have the bottom drop out of the market before your ship (or your descendants’) delivers because you found a local asteroid that’s rich in mithril. Interstellar law will be interesting, settling all of the bankruptcy claims from companies going belly-up while there’s cargo in transit. Futures trading in the commodities markets, too. The one advantage for importing/exporting Zebulon 7 wine is that will age enroute.

A lot of time and effort went into updating code and testing it, but nobody could be sure all problems were caught. Hence expanded scrutiny when things went live. Plus, if you were working insurance claims, you would have been handling issues from other people possibly not fixing all the problems. It’s no different than putting extra staff on duty after a hurricane or tornado. You don’t know how much damage will happen, and being swamped/unresponsive is ultimately bad for business.

This is posted in philosophy. You have not presented a model; there are no testable predictions. How can there be, for “mysterious, undetectable characteristics”?

It was mostly nothing because people put in the time and effort to update code. Extra scrutiny on the rollover effects was insurance. Pretty cheap insurance, I think.

The hybrid is significantly heavier. (curb weight 4,145 to 4,715 lbs vs 5,030 to 5,410 lbs) I’m guessing batteries.

If that’s your summary then I think your reading comprehension needs improvement. Cognition plays a small role in evolution and it has not been ignored. It does not play a role as large as you seem to imply. Since biologists are aware of cognition and that it plays a role in evolution, evidence of that isn’t the issue. (I mean, you think altruism hasn’t been noticed?) You claimed intent was part of evolution, and the implication was that it was on equal footing with random mutations. That what you haven’t provided evidence for.

! Moderator Note Speculations requires a model that’s testable, and this isn’t close to that.

! Moderator Note I don’t see how the topic of a soul is biology, I don’t see any actual science here, and we don’t have a WAG forum.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone

Can it be figured out from the clues?

Why is this in Brain Teasers? Seems like a math question.

But there wasn’t a 3σ fit when the idea was put forward. That’s why it was speculative. And a 3σ fit is still short of a discovery. CERN has had intriguing bumps in data at 3σ which disappeared when more data was gathered. Carroll notes that supernovae, CMB, lensing, baryon acoustic oscillations, and more, are all effects that must fit with the theory. You also want a different research group to confirm the model’s predictions.

You’re redefining cognition to the point where it’s meaningless, as has been pointed out before. You don’t get to define terms to mean what you want. If you want to discuss science you use science’s definitions. Stimulus-response is not cognition.

You should have caught on by now that simply stating something is insufficient. You need to back it up. If you continue to refuse to do so, there’s no point in discussion. As someone pointed out earlier, the vast majority of species are single-celled. So the claim is massive overreach and/or abuse of what cognitive means Trillions is a very small number in this context, and science isn’t ignoring it just because you’re unaware of it.

The model has been around for a while - it did not arise from current data. As Markus pointed out, it’s only a three-sigma fit, and there may be other phenomena that it needs to match. This could be like MOND, where it matches one anomaly but fails to line up with other data. I don’t know. We get pop-sci summaries (or press releases) much faster and widely distributed than we used to, but the actual science takes a while. It’s easy to get out over your skis.