iNow

Risk is so negligibly small IMO as to be dismissed and disregarded. Main risk seems to be fire from heat. If your device is getting so extremely hot while it charges as to ignite any items surrounding it, then case or no case will result in similar outcomes. It’s time to replace. The only time it makes sense to remove a case for charging IMO is if you’re using a wireless induction pad and the case interferes with successful transfer of power.

Happiness is the wrong metric, IMO. Healthiness, specifically mental health, is the way to go. You lose your job and have an entire family counting on you for survival? Don’t worry, be happy! Your spouse get raped leaving work? Don’t worry, be happy! Your child die in a fire? Don’t worry, be happy! You got diagnosed with terminal cancer at the age of 14? Don’t worry, be happy! Did warring tribes raid your village and slaughter everyone living there? Don’t worry, be happy! Can’t afford food or shelter and living in squalor for decades at a time? Don’t worry, be happy! Nonsense. Feeling the reality around us and dealing with it in a healthy authentic manner needs to be the goal, not some bumper sticker “turn that frown upside down!” childish cartoon view of goals for existence. If feeling better is your goal, then science has shown charity and helping others, finding meaning in our actions, spending time outdoors, and getting consistent quality sleep tend to be the strongest levers…. But disappointment and failure will be your primary outcome if you try to prioritize happiness over healthiness.

Droughts are worse and wild fires are extinguished to protect dwellings. This creates more tinder and sparks from human activities and power lines love jumping into kindling like that.

Yes, most everyone of these issues is solvable. No doubt, but you do your argument a disservice by ignoring the costs, time, effort, and lost opportunities elsewhere that come with solving some of these challenges. At some point it’s simply wiser and more mature to accept that it’s not worth it and begin exploring different solutions (or accepting some of the solutions already in place to address these same needs). ETA: You're also ignoring new problems this approach would likely create. Solving engineering problems on cars might create social problems and accessibility problems in neighborhoods, for example.

We humans try to put things into neat little categories. Boy girl. White black. Hot cold. Yummy yucky. It makes our feeble ape minds happy, but the universe doesn’t care about our word and category choices. It’s all on a spectrum, and it differs based on your perspective. Two people looking at the exact same thing might have two totally different interpretations. It’s all relative, you might say… and what is alive versus what is not is no different in that regard… and viruses really laugh at us when we’re trying to decide whether they’re alive or not.

Depends on how you define manifestation. Is it like the placebo effect?

Sure… Together, because then you can argue! We all have biases. Pointing out errors and biases in the work and comments of others is sort of at the heart of what science is. Science is a method of removing/minimizing human bias while finding better and better ways to model the cosmos. Everything we learn is only provisionally accepted, then immediately replaced when a better version comes along. Science is a blood sport where we assassinate bad ideas wild abandon. You don’t get extra credit for trying hard. If you can’t grow a thicker skin and can’t take unending criticism and keep wanting to sing kumbaya with everyone, then you may not be the most ideally suited person to practice science.

Slower rain would be welcome and better. Drought makes dirt like concrete and much of it will just flash flood runoff when it comes down so violently and fast.

Ok

You tell me. You’re the one who asked why autonomous vehicles can’t be designed to go as fast as Japanese trains. See also: Relationship between velocity, perceived speed, vestibular response, and passenger comfort: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7559987/

Turns. People. Other similar obstacles and intrusions.

Is this a serious inquiry? Why can’t an auto out vehicle on city streets be designed to go as fast as a maglev train? Replacement is ideal, but unrealistic. Why? The scale is huge, but Walmart or Lockheed Martin and other similar private entities could surely pull it off.

Not according to the originalists on the US Supreme Court.

Do you also refuse to accept the new last name when a woman marries and no longer uses her maiden name, even after she corrects you? Do you also refuse to call someone Doctor after they compete the appropriate schooling and insist on calling them Miss or Mister, even after they correct you? What is so hard about calling a person trans or the gender which best aligns with who they are and how they identify, if it’s not simply plain old fashioned bigotry? Unless, of course, you’re trans and trying to compete in the division which best aligns with how you authentically identify yourself. I never suggested otherwise. What a needlessly barbed reply. “Fairness” has been a consistent ribbon through and core theme across multiple posts for several months now (and central to the arguments of many here standing in opposition).

Not to point out the obvious, but there have been 90 pages of discussion since then. It’s evolved a bit.

First, they're called trans women, not former men. Second, this suggests that the chess world believes men have some sort of mental and intelligence advantage over women players, which they clearly do not. I believe the International Chess Federation made a mistake here, and the female grandmaster whom everyone in this thread seems eager to protect agrees with ME, not YOU... calling the ruling ridiculous, absurd, and offensive. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-66538328 I'd very much like to understand the rationale... especially since men and women on a daily basis compete alongside and against one another in the open division already." It seems even chess is subject to prejudice and ignorance, and while they acknowledge this is temporary, it should (and almost certainly will) be undone sooner rather than later. Indeed. Appreciate your post, as well. Like a two-sided coin, fair to one may be unfair to another. We all want fairness, but we seem to target different subjects in our desire to protect. There aren't perfect answers. We'll need to compromise and refine regardless of path chosen.

It was apparently easier to evade and ignore your question then deflect with a random anecdote from a random uninformed athlete somewhere mad that they lost and lashing out in response.

Of course it is. You can’t even tell me what it’ll look like next month.

This is both a hasty generalization and an unsupported nonsequitur.

I paraphrased, and apologize that I didn't provide an exact reference to a comment I made only a few hours previous. I know what my intent was, and it was not to deceive. Thank you for this additional opportunity to further align with you in a more precise way. I'm grateful that you've called it out, but dishonesty was not present in my approach.

Yes

Off topic, but this is a space where I anticipate recent advancements in room temperature semiconductors will offer huge rewards and benefits to bring costs down. Part of why MRIs are so expensive is because they require such powerful cooling to work. You misspelled anecdote, unless perhaps you meant "narrative?"

Like the separate, but equal reference? I was just having a bit of fun. Trying to add some levity to an otherwise heavy thread. You suggested that others were being weaselly and hiding and other similar derogatory characterizations. I pointed out that perhaps they simply felt the effort of answering your question wasn't worth it. That the ROI wasn't there. That in this thread you seem to have firmly made up your mind and really don't want to openly explore other ideas. I summarized all that by saying, "Maybe they just think you're engaging in bad faith" and basically aren't worth the time or effort. In response? You said, "Link?" Link to what? Link to my suggestion that maybe they have other reasons for not answering your loaded questions? There is no link to that... it's another bad faith request. So, I shared a picture of Link from the Legend of Zelda. This is a game that's been out for decades. It's recently become more popular with a new version release, and it's everywhere in the social either lately. I made my picture of the hero of that game (Link) more on-topic by sharing a pic of him expressing himself as a female, something he did to gain entry to an area of the kingdom where men aren't allowed. You know... fun? Lighthearted... levity. I'm sorry it went over your head, but I'm sure it went over the head of others, too... so thanks for the invitation and opportunity to elaborate.

That it’s a model

That’s amazing! Have you already submitted your results to the journals?