swansont

Which has sulfur in it. CH3SH

That doesn’t mean that motivated reasoning is limited to or started with politics, nor that its origins don’t have an evolutionary connection, even if it’s some kind of side-effect of a useful advance. I can imagine that there are issues that depend on population size or population density but I don’t see how motivated reasoning is one of them.

We’re not even there yet; you haven’t even established the parameters of a discussion, which is part of what I asked for — a timeline and a definition do not require an experiment. Evidence at this point could even be anecdotal., pointing to specific examples happening.

Microsoft has recently announced that Copilot is for entertainment only, so I think the lawyers are scared about liability as people blame the AI companies for screwups. “Copilot is for entertainment purposes only,” the company warned. “It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.” https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/05/copilot-is-for-entertainment-purposes-only-according-to-microsofts-terms-of-service/ AI will probably have to get over the hurdle that lie detectors never could before being accepted in courts. People will likely try and there will be lawsuits challenging it.

But there’s a limit to what chemicals are typically there. I was under the impression sulfur compounds were the primary cause, with hydrogen sulfide being the most common culprit

Evidence that it’s happening far to quickly to be a natural evolutionary trend, and evidence that most of the motivation to actually reason out a solution is born of poverty and a sense of fairness. It would also be helpful to define, reasonably precisely, what “politics” entails.

If “as we know” refers to first name/last name in the Anglocentric world, with the latter being inherited, Wikipedia says that in England it began with the preparation of the Domesday book after the Norman conquest, and became common in the 14th century. But there are many cultural variations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surname

Evidence?

Yes, that’s how they make money; the larger point is you could find such articles yourself, but you seem uninterested in seeing if what you’re saying is defensible

It might have been refusal to pull names of non-white/male people off of the promotion list. Or multiple things. Trump et al. have been stripping away anybody with moral or ethical objections to the agenda. It may be that they hadn’t identified all of them with earlier culls, or these are newer objections because the line being crossed has moved. Hell hath no fury, etc. etc.

Since the phenomenon happens outside of politics, the evolutionary origins and also the discussion including non humans, that wouldn’t be appropriate (despite there being a crazed orangutan currently holding high political office) If one wanted to discuss it limited to political situations, they are free to open such a thread.

OTOH, Trump acts like he has the power to control these things. But he hasn’t even gone through the charade of issuing an EO

If you can’t be bothered to watch it again to get the information, why do you expect anyone else to? Which means, of course, you haven’t independently fact-checked the numbers to ensure he’s jot just making them up. You can do more than one thing. That he speaks of corruption here in no way implies that he doesn’t also advance conspiracy theories on other occasions. And it’s not hard to confirm that he spouts them and other BS https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/11/15/rfk-jrs-conspiracy-theories-heres-what-trumps-pick-for-health-secretary-has-promoted/ Meaning he has no credibility, so what he says should carry no weight on its own. Quoting him or linking to what he says is just trolling.

Moderator NoteFrom rule 2.7 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. While I’m sure that the physics here is interesting, this isn’t the way to discuss it, and any implication about theology is tenuous at best. To be science news, it needs to cone from a news source and be about science. I don’t think the is issue of the Bible being real is in question; I have one on my bookshelf.

I think we’re doing better with coating the steel, as well as with the steel itself (e.g. use of alloys)

TIL about the deep scattering layer, aka false bottom, in the ocean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_scattering_layer “a layer in the ocean consisting of a variety of marine animals. It was discovered through the use of sonar, as ships found a layer that scattered the sound and was thus sometimes mistaken for the seabed”

Yes. If you compare cars of today with those of 50 years ago, you’ll see there’s more plastic and composite materials. Steel is still present because of strength requirements and cost issues, but it’s around 60% of the weight as opposed to ~87% in 1970 https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3144/fs2005_3144.pdf

In my ~25 years in the DC area I saw the noticeable advancement of the cherry blossom peak and a corresponding shift in the fall foliage

You need to provide a citation

Moderator NoteYou’ve been afforded ample opportunity to cite some actual science. Since you have not, this is closed

If you didn't mean planets, you shouldn’t have said planets.

You said planets. The sun is a star, the moon is, well, a moon, and Saturn’s rings are…rings. The question should be why Uranus and Neptune were excluded

Why should it not go in speculations? That’s where things called ”a theory of everything” go. The Lounge is for personal things.

“Scientists have developed a breakthrough “superfood” for honeybees by engineering yeast to produce the essential nutrients normally found in pollen. In controlled trials, colonies fed this specially designed diet produced up to 15 times more young, showing a dramatic boost in reproduction and overall health. As climate change and modern agriculture reduce the availability of natural pollen, this innovation could offer a practical way to support struggling bee populations.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260327000518.htm

Right, there are plenty of example where scientists are the ones sounding the alarm and being ignored by business executives and politicians. Blaming scientists in general is IMO a misplaced attack (and the irony of an accusation of failing to do due diligence is not lost)