Strange

Why do you assume it is the journal that made the changes, rather than the authors?

The content of the article. And tThe bit where he says “I am a racist” and links to another of his racist articles. Small clues, I know, easy to miss. What sources? (notice how that blog post didn’t give any? Another clue there.) And, even if true, what evidence do you have for your racist views of the cause? Oh look. Another straw man. Well done. Are you aiming to get one in every post?

! Moderator Note Do not post bare links with no explanation. The rules require you to provide enough information about the content of the link. Members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos

Racist quotes racist for support. What a surprise.

No. Who said that? No one said that. Please stop making these idiotic straw man arguments. I am going to report this thread as breaking the rule about discussions in good faith. And, if anything, what evidence there is points in the other direction. The population is expected to peak around the end of the century. Any decline from there will be slow. It may be another century until the population drops to the current level. And another 100 or 200 years before it falls to a level that is easily sustainable without putting excessive strain on resources. So starting to promote population growth now seems just a little premature. Maybe you could hang on for another 300 years or so and see what the situation is then. However, I don't think these forecasts take into account the possibility of disastrous climate change or, say, a global pandemic.

What? No. Who said that? The average fertility rate has already fallen enough to limit population growth. It is predicted to grow to somewhere between 7 and 11 billion people. That is probably, just about sustainable. Unlimited growth would not be. If efforts to improve health and education work then it should start decreasing from there, which will put less of a strain on the Earth's resources. I don't know where all this nonsense is coming from. What is this "scientific evidence that all the Papuans are extremely talented" you are talking about? (I mean, maybe they are. I have no idea. But it seems unlikely.) And how is it relevant? The population of PNG is about the same as a large city. So what are you talking about?

I don't think there is any such thing.

Yes. Certainly the last few British Prime Ministers. I would be surprised about the others. (So, yes, citations definitely needed.) And Orban. And the Brazilian one. As I said, far-right populists. Why? Isn't the scientific evidence good enough? You prefer some anecdotes about celebrities instead? (One could find plenty of individual examples, obviously, but I'm not going to bother because it isn't relevant.)

The big problem is over population. So the ideal is to reduce fertility rates (which you do mainly by improving education, particularly for women). But, perhaps not surprisingly, some far right leaders do try to follow the policy you suggest. Yes, that can be a problem. But it can also be a benefit to the home country: many migrants from poorer countries send back money. Many migrants will eventually return with higher education and wealth than they would have had otherwise. But, again, the solution is not stopping migration. The solution is improving education, health and wealth in all countries. Well I thought you might ask that, which is why I provided links to the evidence. Which would you trust more: far-right populists and their “researchers” or the scientific evidence?

Arguably, it should increase. Immigrants are, on average, healthier than the non-migrant population (1) and tend to be more entrepreneurial (2) and do better educationally. Also, with an ageing population with a fertility rate of 1 or less, wealthier countries depend on immigration for the future workforce. I'm not sure what your point is? (1) https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol40/4/default.htm (2) https://hbr.org/2018/10/research-shows-immigrants-help-businesses-grow-heres-why You know how they say "there is no such thing as a stupid question" ?

Busy, busy, busy. Places to go, people to illuminate Nicely put. I get the impression that some people read books/articles (and answers on forums like this) having decided they are all wrong and just looking for things they can disagree with.

! Moderator Note Note: 1. the rules require you to post here on the forum, not require people to download documents 2. Your document appears to be just text, so there is no reason for posting a file 3. I strongly recommend against downloading potentially dangerous file formats from unknown sources 4. Your inks appear to be the usual crackpot sites so I wouldn't even bother There is no such thing as an "official" theory. There are theories that are supported by evidence, and there are those that are not. (Guess which category yours fall into.)

There is no such thing as "pure energy".So you are creating a false categorisation between "matter" and "something that doesn't exist". Photons are quanta of electromagnetic radiation. It is known. They do. The concept of "matter" is not precisely defined. You could say that all fermions are "matter". In which case neutrinos would be. Even though they don't exist in anything that we would normally call "matter" (tables, dogs, etc) Or you could say that only the particles that make up what we consider to be material objects (electrons, protons, neutrons and maybe quarks) are "matter". Just because everything material has mass, so that is how we define it. I suppose that is yet another definition. Not one that is very consistent with physics though. Probably more useful when discussing philosophical ideas like materialism vs idealism. Nope.

Photons are not matter, by any reasonable definition. Matter is usually defined to be something with mass and that occupies some amount of space; in other words, fermions (quarks, protons, electrons, etc) Photons are (a) massless and (b) bosons, which means they do not require their own volume of space. You can put 1 or a million bosons in the same place (which you can't do with fermions). Energy is a property. But it is a popper of fermions (matter particles) and bosons (such as photons). Juts because photons have energy does not make them matter. Do you mean "in some languages"? Can you give an example. But that isn't really relevant. As far as physics s concerned, they are not forms of matter. There is no matter conservation law. There is a mass-energy conservation law (because was and energy are equivalent). Although it does not always apply. The total energy (or mass equivalent) is the same before and after.

! Moderator Note This is incoherent and ignorant nonsense. This is a science forum. If you do not wish to discuss or learn about science, then this may not be the best place for you.

I don't think that is a question science can answer. It belongs in the realm of philosophy (or religion, if you prefer).

And I recommend Visual Studio Code. It can be used as a simple text editor, but also supports all the advanced features of an IDE, with the appropriate extensions. https://code.visualstudio.com Or, for something simpler on Windows, Notepad++ is an excellent choice: https://notepad-plus-plus.org

That works because of the clear="all" not because of the <br/>. You could put clear="all" in the <p> tase and it should have the same effect. That is really intended to be used after "float" elements (I think images float unless you specify the alignment). But, as Sensei says, you should really do this in the CSS, rather than the HTML. It can be very confusing trying to learn these things by trial and error. I would look for a good tutorial online, to get a more structured approach. You can usually find good lessons/blog posts on individual features (such as layout, colours, boxes, blocks vs inline elements, etc). The W3Schools website is a good resource with tutorials and reference material on how things work: https://www.w3schools.com

There are several things you can do. The simplest is probably to put the image inside <div></div>. This is, be default, a "block" element; in other words, creates a new paragraph. (</br> only works within a <p> element) You can also specify "align=..." for the image. But I can't remember off the top of my head how this interacts with paragraph layouts. There are also a lot of options in CC for controlling the layout. You could set display="block" for the image, for example.

Are you sure this is correct? Is it, perhaps, class "abc" that you cannot style (because of the error described above)?

This article on the various meanings of "nothing" may be relevant: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/05/01/the-four-different-meanings-of-nothing-to-a-scientist/

And we have a winner. "US President Donald Trump has appeared to undercut his own intelligence agencies by suggesting he has seen evidence coronavirus originated in a Chinese laboratory." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496098

Safari, Chrome and Firefox So I am completely baffled by this. By the way, you said: " i am unable to style paragraph which comes just after img tag" But that is obviously not the problem as you ara able to style "abc" which also comes after an image tag.

Yes. It was blue, I changed the css and now it is red. What browser are you using?

That code works correctly for me: both paragraphs have blue text, and changing the definition of 'top' in the css file changes the style of that paragraph. Maybe the problem is that "top" is a keyword in css. Some browsers might have a problem because of that. Maybe. You could try changing the name of the class. Something went wrong here: But that isn't relevant. Also, you should use relative URLs for the css file and images. Otherwise, when you move the file somewhere else (e.g. a web server) it won't work.