swansont

That would be my (inexpert) analysis. It’s exposed directly to the water and yet it erodes less. In #2, do you expect sharp corners to last in erosion/weathering?

Which is a reason not to use AI, because the AI that’s readily available for such things isn’t very good. Can you do a search and evaluate the quality of the results? But that would not necessarily be objective.

! Moderator Note Lots of ideological claims, absolutely zero support for them. Rule 2.12: We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling. IOW, don’t assert your beliefs as fact. That’s a non-starter

Ralien banned as a sockpuppet of Coxy123, splodge and JustJoe

Orbits are accelerations, and you can tell you are accelerating. But the speed was given relative to the galaxy center.

What’s your attempt at answering? Do resistant layers erode faster or slower than the less resistant layers?

Because people observed the work that they did when they had the opportunity to do so. It’s not who works for them that shows bias, it’s who doesn’t. You could use a search engine to find data, instead of just musing out loud. Who are these two billionaires? Certainly not Musk and Trump.

They do change, but since stars are far away, their relative location doesn’t move much in a human lifetime, or even several lifetimes. The closest ones generally change faster, since the angular motion depends on distance, same as things on the horizon looking like they move slower than things up close. https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/constellations-move-change-over-time

Straight-line motion at constant speed has no effect - it’s exactly the same as if the object is at rest and everything else is moving. Accelerations are another matter. The sun rotates, so it’ deforms as a result. It bulges a bit at the equator, making it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere.

I guess part of the problem is reading comprehension. I said “I split the thread because quantum fields was not part of the OP, and neither was consciousness” and I posted a modnote noting that posting a video without supporting info isn’t compliant with the rules. I didn’t say anything about a citation for the video. You seem to be supporting the claim of the OP. You certainly aren’t rebutting it. But since your version of events is incorrect, perhaps that’s part of your confusion? That’s information about your knowledge, not information about quantum physics.

Worldwide electricity generation is around 30 x 10^12 kWh (30 trillion) At $0.10 per kWh, that’s 30 trillion US dollars a year. Chasing a few percent of that seems worth a few billion, even discounting peripheral discoveries that might happen.

The lack of US permits after Three Mile Island might have been more about perception than actual activism. i.e. they didn't want the backlash of people protesting or speaking up at hearings, or just negative press, because of what the public felt afterwards. So a PR issue more than anything.

No. The reconstitution happens under very limited circumstances, and the universe is nowhere near that set of circumstances.

AFAICT nobody has given a summary of the video, as required by the rules, so it does not exist, as far as discussion in this thread is concerned. All you have is citations, so you’d better provide them. What’s your area of expertise? You, too, have given no information as to quantum physics. If you thought that you could bluff your way through this by playing offense and that nobody would notice that there’s nothing that supports the premise of the OP, you’re wrong

Ones with no leverage. Banks are harder to dodge, I think. He relinquishes the collateral. He might be able to renegotiate, but getting tagged as a bad risk makes it harder to keep borrowing.

You’re thinking of infrastructure week…which will happen any time now

The Chips Act bit means they already had committed to some construction, so it’s possible some of this is agreeing to stuff they were already going to do, like Mexico and Canada did with the first round of tariffs. Then they slow roll anything past that, and, as you say, keep promising the next bit is just around the corner.

The article is a bit thin on details, and the mention of the Chips Act means they had already committed to investing while Biden was president. And a pledge to construct new plants is not money in the hand - it could be a bluff to wait out Trump. You can always come up with excuses for construction delays. Permits and real estate acquisitions take time. More if the government’s bureaucracy has been gutted. They could also blame supply chain disruptions from tariffs and no construction workers from deportations - they could end up blaming Trump for all of the delays and end up not spending much at all. Foxconn pledged to build a plant in Wisconsin during Trump’s first term, and then backed out. TSMC might end up doing something similar.

It’s generally easier to change legislation than to amend a constitution. That’s why I argue that protections enacted by legislation are not rights. In the US the ninth and tenth amendments state: IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Basically, if a power is not reserved to the government, they can’t stop you from doing something. The government can regulate certain things about purchasing a house. That would most likely happen at the state level; any federal limits would likely be limited to things involving interstate commerce (perhaps with mortgages)

I don’t think he seeks isolation; I don’t think he understands commerce enough to know the implications of his actions (he bankrupted a casino, for crying out loud, among numerous other failed business ventures). He hasn’t demonstrated he knows how tariffs work and he’s a bully, a would-be mafioso, so he thinks shake-downs are how things work, because that’s what he knows. He inherited a good economy from Obama and there were enough adults in the room to keep him from crashing the economy until COVID hit, and he thinks it was his doing. Now he’s wrecking it and he and his minions are trying to blame it on Biden. Bad things are never his fault. If the US ceases to be a stable economic partner other countries will avoid doing business here, and a certain amount of US prosperity will be lost if we aren’t considered a good risk for e.g. lending money to us, and people stop buying those things we still export. But that’s probably too much nuance for him. He might be able to bully one country here and there, but with a bunch of them aligned in opposition, he lacks the leverage he imagines he has. A lot of rich avoid taxes by borrowing against their wealth. The interest paid is much lower than the capital gains you might pay on the appreciated wealth. Those unrealized gains get zeroed out when that wealth is passed on to the next generation. “invest, borrow, die” But if the assets lose value, then the loans aren’t covered, the banks call the loans and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Which is why protesting/boycotting Tesla is a current strategy to attack Musk. Much of what he‘s done is based on Tesla’s valuation. If sales crater then eventually so does the stock. If he has to sell billions in stock to cover the loans he could owe cap gains on top if it, and it drives the stock price down even more. Pissing off the world is a bad move for him.

Good thing that lying isn’t a sin, then.

That’s not symmetry. The performers also have no right not to be offended. Perhaps part of the motivation for the performance was they were offended by the far-religious-right’s attitudes. The church/religious folk have the right to say things that comment on LGBTQ people. And they do so, continually. If they can be offensive but protected from being offended, that’s not symmetric.

I think there a quasi bell curve, where people who don’t understand are afraid of it because they only know the fear-mongering, don’t trust experts, and the tendency to fear the unknown. Those who have some understanding are more accepting because they can do a more rational analysis (like coal power causing lots of deaths, but not in spectacular fashion of a nuclear accident), but the people who know enough to understand some of the nuances and more complex issues surrounding it might be more wary. (issues of profit vs safety, non-standardized plants making safety issues pretty much unique to each site)

They were offended, but have no right not to be offended. Those who didn’t like it could simply not watch. (Only those few physically there wouldn’t have that option). I feel offended by certain aspects of organized religion, but it’s not a problem since nobody is forcing me into a church. I read something earlier today about how Christians in the US feel persecuted when their beliefs are minimized or dismissed, but that’s just the privilege of freedom to practice religion, and having their beliefs amplified institutionally. It’s not actual persecution. It’s manufactured outrage, and they have to go looking for things to be angry about. And I claim that this is not a right. You are assuming it is, but give an example showing it isn’t Who?

The framework was there, since we can amend the principles the country is supposed to run on. But the current principles of DEI have been a long time coming, and as far as widespread adoption (by people in power) clearly we’re not there yet. Yes, the framers were egalitarian, but also limited by the attitudes of their time. Change in attitudes are more often incremental, even if implementation takes larger steps.