swansont

Was that in response to me? I didn’t put your name on it, but you said “atheists believe” like there’s some strict doctrine beyond non-belief in gods.

The Romans are to blame for some of it. Moving the start of the new year when reworking their calendar, going from 10 to 12 months. But there are lots of calendars out there, and the new year doesn’t coincide with the Gregorian (or Julian) calendar. Even in the Julian calendar, new year was not always Jan 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year

That implies belief in a supreme being is required to believe in reincarnation, or mysticism (multiple planes of existence). I don’t see why that is true.

! Moderator Note This isn’t the stream-of-consciousness forum. You need to explain what this means, and why it counts as philosophy.

You can absorb protons (particle capture), you can have a particle strike a nucleus and knock a proton out (particle ejection), you can have a neutron turn into a proton or proton turn into a neutron (beta decay and electron capture) and fission (whether induced or a spontaneous decay)

Then they have no place here. Yes, it is. You can’t add variables with different units. You can’t have an exponent with units.

It’s physics. Lots of abstract things in physics. Which is not what physics does. It tells us how nature behaves. The nature of reality is philosophy. How do you empirically test whether you’ve described the nature of reality? As opposed to something else, like Plato’s allegory of the cave?

! Moderator Note I have removed your links. Posting something as facebook or instagram doesn’t tell anyone what the link actually is, and what we’re looking for is some kind of scientific study, not a dozen random people saying something. This is a science discussion site. Anecdotes aren’t data. And, as I said, advertising is against the rules. Thread closed.

“Citation needed” should not be ignored. It’s a reasonable request that you support a claim, and failure to do so makes your post soapboxing. There’s a conversation to be had about the pros and cons of profit-driven research, but griping is not going to work.

! 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.