MigL

Both Norway and Argentina can be beaten ( as well as Portugal, the US or Belgium ) Spain and France may pose bigger challenges, and England should worry about having to face them.

Holy crap ! England 3 - 2 Mexico. That was a tense 2nd half. One man down, it was ugly, but they did it. Is it finally coming home ?

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for F Balogun, and he should be proud of his efforts so far , in this World Cup. But incidents do happen, and he could have broken the other player's ankle through a careless, if unintentional, challenge. The red was deserved, as per VAR, and the second review a day later. The team has gotten where they have through hard work and skill, but D Trump is making the team look bad, because he is used to cheating to get his 'wins', and now the USMNT is perceived the same ( there were already 'fix' rumors ). Besides, the USMNT will be facing Belgium, and from what I've seen so far, they shouldn't have a problem dispatching the Belgians. D Trump didn't need to meddle, and make every one look bad. But it's halftime for the England - Mexico game, and, thanks to J Bellingham, England lead 2 - 1. The last 15 min. have been very exciting. With Italy MiA for the last three World Cups, and Canada having exited already, all I have left to wear is my white jersey with the St. George's cross on the shoulder. Go England !

Maybe if he stopped micro-managing everything and paid attention to his briefings, instead of getting his corrupt friends involved in vanity projects, so they can fleece millions from American taxpayers ... In breaking news, the American football ( soccer ) player, F Balogun, was red carded during his last game. The ref was originally going to dismiss the infraction, saying it wasn't intentional, but VAR disagreed. Stepping on someone's ankle can result in serious injury; so he was given a red and a one game suspension. Now, the Canadian midfielder I Kone had his leg broken in two places during their game against Qatar, and no one would argue that was intentional, yet the qatari player received a red card and a 5 game suspension. F Balogun's carding/suspension was subsequently reviewed again by FIFA, and the suspension upheld. Yet the latest news indicate that D Trump personally called his corrupt buddy, G Infantino, and as if by magic, F Balogun's suspension has been lifted and he will be playing. No explanation given, other than FIFA has the right to do it. I have nothing against the players, as I'm sure they are doing their best, but this stinks to high heaven, and makes them look bad; as if they need to 'cheat' to get results, instead of hard work and skill. But I guess that's how D Trump operates ( witness all the cheating involving mid-terms ). It's official then. D Trump and his gang of corrupt degenerates ( including G Infantino ) have fu*ked up everything he's involved with, including the World Cup.

Why does every thread about Trump and his Presidency turn into a 'Political Humor' topic ? This whole Administration has been a ( bad ) joke.

Can't we just avoid all the drama by saying All facts are truths; not all truths are facts. Due to the vicissitudes of the English language, it seems 'truth' can have several interpretations, and as we see in this discussion, makes the communication of the idea somewhat difficult. Facts, on the other hand, are 'self defined', and all are forced ( by the definition ) to agree on interpretation.

In the case of any disagreement between a speaker and a listener as to whether a statement is true, or not, verification is usually established by fact.

The ref calls his truth. VAR establishes the facts. ( although I object to the disallowed Croatia goal against Portugal, last night )

Sorry CharonY. I didn't mean to start the slide of your OP into the gutter ...

I don't find chickadees 'sexy' at all. ( what're you, a weirdo ? ) 😄 😄

Versatile ? Don't you mean frustrating ?

I guess Socrates and Einstein were right ... "The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know" -Socrates "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know" -Einstein

Thank you for that @KJW . I figure, if I'm going to get news on upcoming semiconductor technologies, I may as well enjoy watching the presenter.

Both are linguistic tools to convey ideas. So let's examine the ideas they attempt to convey. The word 'fact' indicates to your listener that they can independently verify what you have stated, and they will find agreement. The word 'truth' is usually stated as 'my truth' or 'I believe to be true', indicating a personal belief, which might not be verified by other's. No offense, Eise, but there is nothing Philosophical about it; the two terms, much like a hammer and a screwdriver, are defined by their intended purposes. ( although people do use hammers to drive in screws, and screwdriver handles to bash things )

I cannot make any recommendations as the field, and literature, are mostly beyond my level, but you've made me curious. Is this, in any way, related to the non-linearity of the EFEs, and the fact that they are extremely difficult to solve, usually employing linear approximations, which restrict their validity to a limited range of input values, and omit some other interesting results ?

Did you still have any faith in your Government ?

I understand that. Isn't this mechanism, then, equivalent to 'eyeglasses' and 'hearing aids' for humans with bad eyesight or hearing loss ? Or the equivalent of heated/air conditioned dwellings, for humans, as a response to environmental temperature changes. In effect, 'nature' has evolved, in certain species, the ability to ignore, or work around, certain environmental forcings, just as we have learned to do with 'tools'. How does this fit in with the premise of the OP ?

Processors are already putting up to 300 Billion transistors on a single die ( NVidia Rubin GPU ). The biggest issue at these scales is electron migration ( e- going places you don't want them to go ) through mechanisms like tunneling, and the only current solution is massive redundancy, and error correction, making a lot of those transistors un-useable for the actual task. I think the next big change to keep Moore's Law going, has to be a materials change and/or power consumption reduction to enable massively vertical transistor manufacturing as a bonus, if you watch this video, Anastasi has to be the hottest chip design engineer, with a sexy accent that I can't quite place.

So, even though they can 'edit' their RNA and protein structures to quickly adapt to changing environments, these structures are not 'written' to their DNA, and therefore not inheritable traits. Got it. But how would such a capability have evolved ? And, if an octopus can use the RNA alteration mechanism to adapt to its environment, would that not make a lot, or some, of regular selection/adaptation to environmental forcings ( as experienced by other species ) redundant ? IOW, have cephalopods stopped adapting to their environment through evolution, because they can actively do it 'on the fly' with this mechanism ? ( sorry about all the questions, but this thread made me realize hoe little I actually know about evolution )

Maybe @CharonY , or anyone else who has an educated opinion, can help me out with this related issue. I recently read where octopusses ( octopii ? ) are able to edit their RNA to a much greater extent than any other species. This would mean they are able to select what genetic traits ( much more so than any other species ) they pass on to their offspring. This would seem to make them an active factor in their evolution, as opposed to the rest of us animals, who are passive in our evolutionary trajectory. I'm not even sure how such a trait would have developed, or what its implications are.

No. A simplistic, but accurate, description of relativity.

That's for sure. Trying to 'reproduce' when you have a bad case of gas ( from eating beans ) can be embarrassing, kills the mood, and causes failure 😄 .

I don't think you're using the term 'natural selection' the way an evolutionary scientist would, and that may be leading to the confusion. The 'environmental forcings' that humans are naturally selected for, are vastly different than those of wild animals. We can regulate temperature of our environment, change our food supply, etc., but we have social forcings, economic forcings, etc. which most animals don't have. As @CharonY tried to explain, comparison of the mechanisms for the two isn't really possible. As another monkey wrench into the works, consider that humans are 'evolving' to outlive our reproductive age. This is likely due to the economic forcing I mentioned, and we are not having enough children to replace the population. I think @TheVat previously mentioned this, but eventually, in most advanced societies, the population will consist of a non-reproductive population due to its age. That goes against the purpose of 'natural selection', reproducing, does it not ? Maybe the mechanism of evolution doesn't like what we're doing, and is trying to kill us off.

Kevin Costner did in Waterworld. (big flop so not too many saw it, but I liked it )

Countries like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, where the birth rate is not affected by economics and immigration is low, will be in trouble in less than 100 years.