J.C.MacSwell

Increase? This is generally the most likely occurrence. From Wiki: "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases over time. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy Decrease randomly? The above would seem to contradict my claim that decreases can randomly occur, but in an isolated system at maximum entropy random fluctuations will still occur. This would allow a temporary decrease in entropy. This can actually happen in any isolated system (just don't count on it...the second law is on a very strong footing) though statistically less and less likely for any system further from maximum entropy and for more complex systems. The system described is so simple that random increases and decreases in entropy is bound to occur at points over time. The second law notwithstanding.

I don't think this is correct. First of all it can increase. Second, on the scale you are discussing it can decrease randomly.

Otzi the iceman, who lived around 5300 years ago, had his dna sequenced in 2013, after being found in a frozen state in 1991. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1701 Cloning is obviously more problematic.

All you need is one ancestor from an incestuous relationship, less than or equal to X years ago. "X" is in years back, for all 7.8 billion of us.

If it wasn't for inbreeding in the last X number of years...none of us would be here today... (No doubt true but I wonder what number X is, assuming us refers to all 7.8 billion of us) Over 10% increase since the start of this thread (December 17, 2010). I think we were under 7 billion at that point.

Only God...fortunately He has an omnipotent sense of humour....

The room would be (very) slightly cooler than if you had heated the water electrically, all other factors being the same.

According to Axios, Biden confidants tend to believe the choice is down to Harris and Rice. https://www.axios.com/biden-vp-pick-kamala-harris-susan-rice-0e1f7c91-7df2-4d08-a08f-4568e86e6e50.html

Here she is on Fox News with Chris Wallace: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-vp-hopeful-bass-regrets-past-castro-comment Barring any skeletons in the closet yet to come out, she seems like a very good fit for Biden.

They are still very relevant. As bad as it might be, it would be worse without them or ignored by more.

I'm starting to like the chances (and her herself so far though I do not know that much about her) of Karen Bass. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/karen-bass-joe-biden-running-mate/613975/ Two concerns (not for me) are some of her views on Cuba and a 2010 speech she gave addressing a Scientology Church. Apparently she said nice things about them (citing aspects that few reasonable people would disagree with, so I don't think they will be disqualifying)

Why would I not? I've been a proponent of there appropriate use here even back when the CDC was claiming them as dangerous and unnecessary for the general public.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/travel/state-travel-restrictions.html Of course if you are willing and capable of breaking guidelines and laws, no restrictions would apply to you. Fortunately for us in Nova Scotia it is a little harder to do so. As all of you would understand better than most, even seemingly small advantages can become huge, due to the nature of exponential spread and the ability to keep numbers low enough that contact tracing is effective. (though things can still change very quickly)

I can see that being an advantage for Provinces. Is it also somehow an advantage for Canada vs (say) California? I do believe Canada has been able to negotiate generally better prescription drug pricing, though unclear how they are able to do that.

Some restrictions apply...

Sorry INow. That was badly worded. "The best National plan would help in the US, but I doubt it needs to be centrally managed from the Whitehouse" by it I meant the response to the pandemic, thinking at more State and local levels, not the National plan itself.

One thing the article notes is the long average delivery time for results of tests (4 to 11, and then 7 currently was mentioned. A couple of weeks back my wife was tested here in Nova Scotia on a Sunday afternoon and told she would receive results in the next 24 to 48 hours. She actually received them the next morning. (negative as expected) Nova Scotia currently has just 2 known active cases with just the 2 new ones in some time (as of 2 days ago there were 0 known active cases). Both related to travel outside the country and both were self isolating on arrival so hopefully no spread will come of it. We've benefitted from having a small population, approx 1 million, that is relatively easy to isolate geographically, though we've increased our "bubble" to about include 3 other Atlantic Provinces with similar low numbers of active cases (total approx 2.4 million in the Atlantic Provinces) Despite low case numbers, as of yesterday masks have been mandated for most indoor public spaces in anticipation of a second wave coming after schools open in September and Flu season approaches. Again with regard to the article: Obviously there are better ways and worse ways to respond to this disease. The best National plan would help in the US, but I doubt it needs to be centrally managed from the Whitehouse. Canada has a smaller population than California. Our National response has only required cooperation with the US. Different set of circumstances of course but California is probably as capable of directing it's own response.

It does. Just not as nearly as much as aluminum as aluminum conducts heat better (insulates poorer). Any material below the dew point will start to accumulate condensation. The trick is how to keep it above the dew point of the adjacent air, and how to adequately protect any materials from that condensation if you can't.

That's certainly one of the attractions of Yang for some, including myself. Others certainly prefer the "gut feel" approach where they feel know what's best for everyone and don't need to overthink it. Your current President comes to mind. Most "politicians" don't fall in either category. They're too busy thinking hard about the political implications.

That's just Trump thinking outside the box... The box simply encompassing what might pass as legal.

"A team of European archaeologists uncovered evidence that humans may have been in the Americas for twice as long as previously believed" https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/artifacts-may-have-unearthed-new-timeline-of-human-arrival-in-the-americas Source article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8548977/First-humans-reached-Americas-15-000-years-EARLIER-thought.html Cave in Mexico found with evidence of humans living there 27,000 years ago Modelling reveals humans arrived on the continent around 33,000 years ago Researchers do not know exactly how people first reached Americas at this time Believe they either used the land bridge between North-east Asia and Alaska or sailed along the coastline from modern-day Russia to the new continent

Clearly he or Tulsi Gabbard would be my pick for VP but obviously he is "ineligible" due to sexism regardless if he would be the best potential VP for women. (and Tulsi as VP ain't going to happen) Andrew Yang would however be Bret Weinstein's preferred choice for the Democratic half of his "Unity Campaign" https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/unity2020 As it is, Biden is smart holding off on picking his VP candidate as whoever she is will probably be more "progressive" than he is and would likely have more to say than Biden himself on many issues, some of them likely not in line with Biden's more central ones. This would give Trump and the GOP an easy target, especially given that she would necessarily have a substantial role as VP and quite plausibly become President given Biden's age.

It was pertinent (in my mind at least) to Endy's post. He seemed to intuitively recognize that at the centre something with regard to pressure went to zero, and for the reasons he stated, which made that point unique. (Jupiter OTOH could have any number of points of zero gradient at local maximums or local minimums at any given time) It wasn't the pressure itself that went to zero though. It was the gradient. It has to hit a maximum somewhere down there...

Somewhere near the centre of Jupiter (many factors might put it at other than the exact centre of mass) the pressure would hit a maximum. At that point the pressure gradient would be zero.

Why would there be a gradient at the centre with a planet involved?