exchemist

Exactly. It means literally “sharply stupid”, the “sharp” denoting an acute meaning, intentionally conveyed by what might appear a “stupid” juxtaposition of contradictory terms. In this case the stupid is apparent but no acuteness is detectable, to me at any rate.😉

I don't think so. An oxymoron is a seeming contradiction made deliberately to convey a particular meaning, e.g. a deafening silence. I don't see much evidence of a particular meaning in this case.

OK you've convinced me. It's perfectly true that the beeping when the battery is low is peculiarly non-directional, which makes fairly annoying trying to work out which of the three is responsible. And they do tend to start beeping in the middle of the night, inevitably. But I do slightly resist the notion that the Chinese government knows every time I grill a steak or burn the toast. 😄

Now that really does seem like a solution in search of a problem. Unless, I suppose, one is in the habit of generating smoke at home. Badly drawing wood fire? Smoking huge bongs?

Yes I remember an Alzheimer's scare about Al saucepans about 30 years ago. However none of the recent articles I've seen in the press about advances in the understanding and treatment of this condition seems to mention Al at all. I also note organisations like the Alzheimer's Society are at pains to dismiss the idea that Al pots and pans pose an increased risk, focusing instead on lifestyle factors. So I think we can probably forget it as a significant factor.

There's no control on the little battery-operated units I have on each of the 3 floors of my house. If it goes off (normally due to burnt toast, or fumes from a very hot oven that has not been used in a while, you just take the battery out and it resets.

"Protection" is only relevant for inventions, i.e. something that can be made, which have commercial potential. If you just have a scientific idea, protection in a legal sense is not possible, apart from copyright on the actual text of any article you may write about it. An idea itself is not something that can be legally protected.

If by protection you mean intellectual property protection then do not post it or in any other way publicise it, until you have first filed a patent application. The moment you publish, the idea becomes part of the public domain and free for anyone to take up, unless you have first filed to reserve your rights.

You are just trying to shoot the messenger, I'm afraid. I was very patient with you at the start of all this, but there comes a point at which patience is exhausted. You are free to reject the advice you have been given but don't blame us for giving it. Make your machine and see for yourself, then. If and when you get it working, I predict this thread will suddenly go very quiet. 😁

It's no more arrogant than asserting F=ma. You have had plenty of helpful analysis here, from me and others, which you acknowledged at the time. And yes we do know for sure it is not possible, from Noether's Theorem and from 150 years of the collective experience of mankind. There is no earthly reason to think a bit of amateur dicking around with magnets (why is it always magnets? 🙄) is going to overthrow thermodynamics. That is why we are not curious. We know that you are on a wild goose chase, like so many of the other twopenny ha'penny free energy cranks we have come across down the years. Your machine may function, in the sense that the mechanism rotates etc, but you will not get out more work than you put in. Period. I've no doubt the engineers enjoy the challenge of helping you make a working machine, again in the sense of the mechanism operating. But thermodynamically, it's going nowhere.

There's nothing arrogant about pointing out that over unity or perpetual motion machines won't work. It's just an extraordinarily well-established fact. Nothing to do with "professional reputations", more likely simply not wanting to engage a person they may have decided is a crank. It is likely that nobody can be bothered to go through all the mechanics of forces when the outcome can be shown far more simply by considering energy. As I believe I may have pointed out back at the start of this thread, considering energy is sometimes a useful way to simplify the analysis of problems in mechanics. I don't know what you are hoping your machine will do, but what is guaranteed is you won't get out more work than you put in.

Yes, insensitive of the photographer. Even in western countries it is polite to ask permission, let alone in traditional muslim societies.

I know a woman of Scots ancestry with green eyes. I once went out with a girl who had dark hair and grey eyes, who had part-Irish ancestry. Yesterday at the greengrocery stall I met an Irish girl with red hair and blue eyes. These unusual combinations do seem, anecdotally at least, to crop up in the Celtic nations. But it may all be a bit of a myth. After all, I understand the term "Celt" is pretty meaningless in terms of biological heredity, and is more of a cultural term.

No.

“Another” science expert? 😆

Conflating Jews with Israelis is an old trick of apologists for Israeli policy. I also note Godwin's Law is in operation. The war the IDF is operating in Gaza certainly looks a great deal like ethnic cleansing. - They have herded almost the whole population up against the border with Egypt, in the hope the Egyptians will let them in, having killed over 30,000 of them. - They have tried to get the humanitarian operations of UNWRA stopped, by various means, including disinformation to smear it with complicity in the 7th Oct massacre. - While this is going on, Israeli settlers have been given free rein to take over more land. - There has been silence from the Israeli government about how Gaza should be governed once hostilities cease. - And, far from getting serious about peace negotiations, Israel has actually assassinated the chief negotiator on the other side. So it is a fair inference that Israel seems to want the war to go on until the Palestinians in Gaza either give up and leave, or die.

Suggest reading the thread and addressing the issues raised, specifically the issues of how to make reproducible observations, the degree of confirmed predictive success of the theories, and the use of theories such as Freud’s, which seem to have only shaky empirical support.

Looks like a really impressive piece of cyber warfare, targetting only the fighters equipped with pagers and simultaneously injuring them, knocking out their comms and sowing panic. Very clever. Just wish the bloody IDF would be more targetted in Gaza. But since ethnic cleansing seems to be the unstated aim there, not much hope of that.

If one is a fool, yes. Asking such a question would indicate failure to understand, or to address, why this question is asked of psychology, specifically.

Yes, I think that's the point: the more the idea conflicts with what everyone else considers obvious, the more it becomes inescapable to allege a conspiracy, in order to account for why everyone else is supposedly wrong. This is true of flat earth, 911, Kennedy's assassination, Princess Diana's death (white Fiat Uno/Duke of Edinburgh etc), moon landings, Covid and 5G antennae............ @Night FM, perhaps it would help if you could give an example of a contrarian belief that people call a conspiracy theory but which does not imply a conspiracy. Flat earth is a poor example, for the reasons outlined.

What do you mean by the "volume" of a particle? Such a concept requires objects with sharply defined edges, doesn't it?

They are motivated by profit, but what @CharonY says about shelf life, specifically, has the ring of truth. I worked in the lubricants industry, in which we had to quote shelf lives for packaged lubricants: engine and gear oils and so forth. When a new product is developed, you can’t wait for 5 - 10 years or more before putting it on the market, just so you can determine when it may start to go off. Also, so much depends on storage conditions: temperature, moisture exposure etc. So what a manufacturer - any manufacturer, I suspect - does is come up with a safe “use by” date from the data on life they already have. As it will be an estimate, they will have to err on the conservative side for obvious legal reasons. No need to ascribe malign motives: it’s a purely practical matter, faced by any manufacturer.

The extract you quote seems to be pretty badly written and to be rather a muddle. They criticise science for not accounting for "the subjective experience of life", without clarifying who or what is doing the "experiencing". One might assume they are talking about human experience, but in the next sentence they speak of failing to understand "the various aspects associated with the [sic] biological entities". So actually, they seem to have in mind all organisms, not just human beings. So what, in that case, can they mean by the "subjective experience" in the preceding sentence? Are they suggesting all life, including, say, that of a wasp or a plant, involves some subjective experience that it ought to be the job of science to explain? It seems to me they need to start by justifying the assumption they seem to be making that there has to be some special "subjective experience" that is a universal special feature of living organisms. So that is the first point. The second is that you now seem to be confusing the study of subjective experience, e.g. as recommended by these authors, with a supposed need for science itself to become subjective in its methodology. That would be the kiss of death for science, obviously.

No indeed. About half the country seems to get it.

Why do you think fidelity between sexual partners is valued?