The waves in quantum mechanics are probability waves. While it is true that those can create interference patterns, when they do so they only alter the probability of finding the particles in particular places. You can't add together two particles together in QM to create a new particle with twice the energy (not least because doing so for massive or charged particles like cosmic rays would violate the corresponding conservation laws).

Pure quantum mechanics per se doesn't even have creation or destruction operators for particles, you need relativistic quantum mechanics (i.e. quantum field theory) for that. In QFT, particles do become elevated to not only probability waves but to freely propagating disturbances of the underlying field (for e.g. the electron field for electrons, or neutrino field for neutrinos. Once you do that particles can interact with each other to create new particles, but the physics for that still don't allow "rogue wave"-like behavior, and again you still need to obey conservation laws, so two protons can't merge together to form a single proton because that would violate charge conservation (and they can't even collide to produce two protons, one with very high energy, because that would violate conservation of energy/momentum)

These rays aren't electromagnetic waves, they're protons. You can't get "freak waves" from those because the energy from them doesn't sum like it does from constructive interference of real waves.

This doesn't prevent long exposure times, though it does make them take longer: you can keep the image exposing over multiple shutter cycles. You don't gain any exposure while the shutter is closed, so it'll take longer to gain the same amount of light, but it's still possible.

No, it wouldn't, at least not for physical stores. The store knows what taxes are on all the goods it sells (it must), so all it needs so is update the tag with the total price with tax. Chain stores already do per-store pricing, so it wouldn't be onerous even for them. In fact this is already done for one type of good: gasoline. All gas stations (at least all I've ever seen or heard of) in the US display final prices after tax. And gas taxes are even more complex than normal sales tax. Displaying post-tax prices would be easy for stores. They don't do it because they don't want to do it. Online stores would be a bit trickier, because tax rates can change based on location, but again most online retailers these days are setup to collect taxes (due to some states requiring it) and could easily update prices based on shipping addresses.

But the whole crux of the argument is that the simulated universe can itself create a simulated universe. If a simulation only simulates part of the universe, that simulated universe will only be able to make even more limited simulations, and the whole "there are more simulated universe than non-simulated ones, so we're probably in a simulated universe" quickly falls apart.

More like 0k student loans. Well, maybe some loans from undergrad, but postdoc means you've got a PhD, and any PhD worth having is paid for + a stipend, even in the humanities. The actual postdoc position salary varies heavily by field and institution (I know one person in STEM who made $85k a year, but 50-60k is more typical). And no, student loans don't defer once you're a postdoc, as it's not considered a student position.

It's because if they blame the budget, then in the employee's eyes, Microsoft is at fault. If they shift the blame to the employee's performance, then in the employee's eyes they are the ones at fault. Or at least that is what Microsoft is hoping will happen. It's pretty bog standard emotional manipulation tactics (usually easy to recognize from outside, can be really hard to see when it's happening to you though).

LEO to GSO to Earth (and back), to be precise (they already did LEO to ground directly back in 2014). And yes, reading the article they're pretty explicit about wanting to use this for various space missions: part of the tests include using this one some lunar missions past and future.

The SpaceX links are (as far as I can tell) purely satellite to satellite links. NASA is testing a space to ground link, which is a different (and harder) thing.

In the US, a security is any tradable financial asset. NFTs are tradable, and they are being traded as financial assets. Therefore, they are a security. The fact they're based on a collectible or work of art is irrelevant: in fact there are artwork-based securities. Those securities are generally based on a portfolio of artwork, but one could conceivably make, say, a Mona Lisa security that represented a fractional ownership of the Mona Lisa. The artwork or collectible itself is not a security (in much the same way a company or physical asset like gold is not a security), it is the certificate of "ownership" that is the security, which in this case is the NFT (ownership is in quotes because NFTs don't really own anything).

There are actually quite a few: muons are produced in the upper atmosphere from cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere (the rate at sea level is about 1 per square cm per minute, much higher than the LHC rate). But they're pretty easy to filter out: they're going downwards, the muons they're looking for are going sideways. A few can make it though from the horizon, but since those muons have a lot more atmosphere/earth to travel though, they're a fairly small (and extremely well measured) background. The LHC neutrino experiments are also underground, which blocks the cosmic ray muons a bit.

Not quite. Their speed is very very nearly c (something like 99.9999%), but it's not exactly c. Neutrinos actually have mass, so their energy and momentum depends on speed almost exactly like any other massive particle (I say "almost" because their relationship with mass is complicated, and a bit different from most other particles).

As far as detecting their energy, it's hard. You can't directly observe the neutrino. You instead have it hit a target and produce a secondary charged particle (usually an electron it knocks off an atom, although in these experiments though it produces a muon). That particle can then be tracked and measured pretty easily. This doesn't give you the energy of the original neutrino, but it gives you a minimum energy at least, and if you collect enough statistics you can reproduce the spectrum of the incoming neutrinos.

Pyrolysis is performed in the absence of oxygen. Can't get CO2 without oxygen. The entire goal of the process is to reduce to mostly carbon without burning it off.

Very little, I only looked at the Wikipedia page which listed the first controversy as appearing in 2022. A Google search also doesn't reveal any earlier controversies either, though the results are spammed with the recent issues. If you have evidence of controversy prior to 2021 I'd suggest you provide it.

Verifying the data used is not (and has never been) the responsibility of the publication or peer reviewers. Peer review judges a paper based on the paper itself (at least it's supposed to): is the conclusion supported by the data in the papers, is the analysis properly done, is any needed data missing, are the results notable and worth publishing, etc. It cannot, does not, and is not *meant* to catch fake results (except for the most obviously fake results). Obviously the reviewers can and will reject papers from authors known for fake/plagiarized results, but thats not relevant here: then first controversy around the author didn't come out until after the paper was published. The process for finding fake results is what it has always been in science: replication. There is a very strong institutional incentive to not fake results (since nothing will kill a career faster), so faked data is pretty rare to begin with, but replication is the only reliable way to find such issues. And it's pretty much guaranteed to happen in cases involving prestigious work like room temperature superconductivity (another reason for it's rarity).