npts2020

IDK but it seems likely to me that 95% is probably what reads as 100% when you turn it on because that is what it always reads whether it's been just long enough to charge or overnight.

Supposedly i-phones cut off at 100% and don't begin recharging until it goes below a certain threshold (someone told me 75% but I couldn't find any trustworthy confirmation). The battery in mine doesn't seem to have changed significantly in well over 2 years of use.

There are candidates in every election who want this. Trouble is, the sincere ones are not generally Republicans or Democrats and Americans don't seem to mind "evil" too much so we get what we have...

Most Americans are neither. In a country where basically only Democrats and Republicans are the only parties allowed, barely half of the registered voters are either one. Unaffiliated or independent is the largest segment of the voting populace so there is no way of knowing for sure short of asking. Having said that, most people still vote D or R and whether they support or oppose the policies of whoever is in power will usually show which side is their preference. This is especially true if they are critics because partisans are slow to criticize their own, even in the most egregious cases.

IMO the whole argument over Iran (or any country) building a missile and nuking the US with it is silly. Why would any entity able to refine uranium bother trying to put it on a missile when you can just smuggle it to wherever you want to set it off with likely a higher chance of success and lower cost. This is why I think a long term conflict with Iran is far more dangerous than most people wish to believe, especially if the materiel they have isn't fully secured.

I never considered it to be a big deal since I don't use the reputation arrows that much. It just seemed to me that when someone bothers to answer a question with information, good or bad (up or down arrow), is what the reputation system is for. Some, unfortunately, seem to use it for personal reasons.

IMO you ought to give Mordred an up vote for helping out. There, did it for ya.

Whether it is or not, there are more than a few prominent Americans who don't mind portraying it exactly as a crusade, Pete Hegseth among them

Well, one thing we know for sure is Mr Trump has been lying about what he knew and did with Mr Epstein. In 2006, he told the Miami police chief that "everyone" knew Epstein had underage women at his island but now he has no knowledge of it. Musta forgot such a trivial matter......

IMO giving anyone able to understand what voting is, the ability to vote in all elections to government positions in the governments they are subject to is representative democracy. Anything else is something less. The whole discussion is really about "how many voters I disagree with can we disenfranchise?" and extends well beyond possibly taking away your right to vote at a certain age. It seems to me (in the US, anyway), the main problem is more lack of candidates with good ideas to get behind than whether they are red or blue. In 50 years of voting, I have yet to hear any candidate (Republican or Democratic, at least, the only 2 parties allowed to exist in the US) put forth a detailed plan to eliminate wars, end famines or promote social equality, among other problems that ought to be 100% solvable at this point in human history. Some problems already have widespread public agreement on what to do about them (legalizing cannabis comes to mind) but who is the candidate with a plan?

Because this world (I assume you mean our physical universe and not just planet Earth) is the only one I experience.

We shall have to disagree, then. My understanding of what a scientific law is says that it is simply something shown to be true through repeated experimentation. This IMO is as close to objectivity as we are likely to get but even laws are subject to modification or even outright rejection (extremely rare) if better experiments or data show them to be wrong. What may happen here is we may figure out a way of testing any given law but pixels on a screen will not change it. Only completing the test (experimentation) might do that.

Looks like an icing covered donut. Maybe the kid has a future as a cop. 😜

It seems to me the biggest problem is ignorance rather than age. It amazes me how many people can't tell you what the parties and candidates they are voting for want to do when they get into office. Current occupant of the Oval Office is a prime example, I don't see why anyone is surprised by the things being done...

I don't see how much, if anything, in science can be completely objective since it is being done by humans and even AI is subject to its programming. That being said, peer review has been how we weed out unworkable ideas. Whether or not AI actually will improve the process is anyone's guess but I can see ways it could help, especially with speed.