Strange

Er, no. It is an evidence-based conclusion. If someone has a disease that is easily treatable but will be fatal if not treated, you don't think that withholding treatment will kill them? Or that the person who withholds treatment is not culpable? ("It wan't me, I didn't do anything!") This sounds like that stupid line in bad action films where the villain says, "if you don't let me go I will blow up the city and it will be your fault". Headbangingly illogical. Another example might be that she contracts a minor infection but because freedom of choice is so important, you decide to go against the doctor's advice and not give her antibiotics. The infection spreads and she dies of septicaemia. But, "yay, liberty!" You didn't kill her the bacteria did. Hard to have a rational debate with someone who is blind to the evidence. How do explain the increased death rates when vaccination is either not available or is not used? Coincidence?

So, to be explicit, a shiny object will (all other things being equal) be less hot than a matt black object. However, a shiny object might be more likely to be made of metal than say plastic and so may feel hotter to the touch because it is a better conductor. (I will suggest that the mods move this to Physics)

Here: The verb "be" in that sentence is a copula.

No it isn't. Do you think this is ungrammatical: "What did Trump do today?" "He lied." But don't take my word for it:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie (They do also list a transitive sense, but it is not relevant to this discussion.) Happy might not have been the best example (it is not a reflexive verb, it is an adjective). Maybe "I am swimming" or "I am talking" would be better.

That is mapping any value in Rm to Rn. You appear to be trying to map a function. That doesn't work, in general, because you will lose information going from, say, 3D to 2D. You can't reconstruct a 3D image from a single 2D photograph.

I heard something on the radio the other day about Japan. There was an ignorant campaign against HPV vaccination which caused the vaccination rate to drop from 70% to 1%. Apparently, even the government dropped their support for the vaccine, which is unforgivable. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/qa-japanese-physician-snares-prize-battling-antivaccine-campaigners

It was obviously trying to catch up with a slower computer. Perhaps here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes "Some of Zeno's nine surviving paradoxes..." Which is (not very clearly) referring to the fact that he wrote a book with 40 or so paradoxes in. Of those 40, only 9 are now known about (that is the sense in which "survived" was used).

I don't know how ou think you are going to insert instructions in the pipeline. And certainly not in the right place. Also, that appears to be an x86 instruction which won't do much good on an ARM processor! If you could insert arbitrary instructions into the pipeline, then it would probably be more effective to insert a jump to the code that is executed when the correct passcode has been entered. However, I assume all the security related code is in the ARM's secure area and so unhackable.

OK. So that's a problem with your understanding. Instead, focus on the simpler example: "this statement is false"

The implied topic of the statement is the utterance itself. It is, effectively, short for "I am lying when I speak this sentence." Or, more concisely, "This statement is not true." By your logic, the sentence, "I am happy" would be meaningless as well, because it doesn't state what it is referring to. But that is obviously an incorrect conclusion.

You apparently saw that in a "list" ("its still listed in the unsolved problems"). What list was that?

Yes, looking at it again, I think you may be right. It looks like a rather garbled approximation to the usual resolution (in terms of limits). Whatever that list is, it seems to be very out of date.

So you have "solved" the paradox by just ignoring it. Well done.

No. Just pointing out that becoming a point is not the same as ceasing to exist.

Wow. Just wow. This is beyond straw man argument.

That might be a challenge. You could try this: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Ackerman(8,6) See how many times you can click "More" in the expansion section ... Just looking at the way the value of the function "explodes" for even small values of the first argument, this is not a trivial programming exercise. You would need to use a library that can handle arbitrarily large integers. And a very large amount of paper to print out the result! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_function#Table_of_values

It would be better to start with stem cells: https://io9.gizmodo.com/new-research-suggests-women-can-make-sperm-and-men-can-1180163758

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just that it is not further divisible. After all, mathematical points exist (as much as anything mathematical exists) and that is what Euclid was referring to - if they didn't exist it would have undermined much of the rest of his derivations. And electrons (for example) are point particles but they appear to exist.

Good point.

You don't understand what a question is? (Posed purely as an example of a straw man question. I am reasonably confident you know what a question is.)

That may be true. But there is no evidence for it yet. (Unfortunately, perhaps.)

I see you are back to making stuff up again... Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation needed. Then how come GR works as a classical (non-quantum) theory? And how come we can build models of space-time with zero energy and hence no quantum fluctuations? Citation needed. It doesn't violate GR (or even SR) because no information is transmitted.

I think you are right. Oddly, I don't think it says on the bottle (just lots of warnings about it being corrosive, etc.)

As one of the parties involved has called it a "kiss of death", I think the answer is yes. I just don't understand what the reason is for doing this. It certainly ins't going to help anything. Unless Trump thinks he can solve the Middle East problem simply by siding with Israel and telling everyone else to get lost. So much for the "great negotiator".

Simultaneity is about the relative timing of events as seen from different frames of reference. This is a classical (non-quantum) theory and just assumes that there is a reliable way of detecting the events. If you are gong to introduce the problem of detecting single photons from the events, then this is not really about simultaneity but is closer to just a practical measurement problem. It won't change the relative simultaneity, but could just change whether you are able to detect it or not. (If I have understood you correctly...)