You seem to equate being introverted with being shy, asocial, uncomfortable in public. It isn't that at all, and it's a mistake often made.

Being an introvert is about the way the brain processes information. Introverts process everything much more deeply and unfiltered, and this causes their brains to overload in situations that generate a lot of input. They will listen intently to your conversation, taking in every word, but at the end will feel "assaulted" because they can't filter out any of it.

Extroverts are the opposite. Their processing is more shallow and filtered, and this causes them to crave input, so they seek out social situations with lots of people and lots of activity.

A lot (but not all) of introverts are also HSP (highly sensitive person), meaning their nerves are more sensitive to sound, light, pain, cold, heat. All these things can cause sensory overload, so they tend to avoid situations with loud noises and flashy lights, as you might find in a lot of social gatherings.

People with autism are introverted from birth, their brains are wired differently too. But not all introverts are autistic, the large majority are not. Autistic people are also often HSP, and usually to an even higher degree, having problems with going near things like TL because the perceived flickering and buzzing. It's like all their senses are amped up to 11, which sounds like a great superpower, until you live it.

So it's not a social anxiety that you can fix, or caused by childhood trauma, or not enough parental affection. All these things can cause similar "symptoms", but they are not the same as introversion. When introverts are asocial, it's just because being among people is just too draining, and they'd rather not deal with that all the time.

Extroverts often see introverts as inferior and broken because of all this, and try to "fix" them, and make them more social. While in truth there is nothing to fix, they just perceive the world differently. And there are benefits too: introverts often are better thinkers, strategists, writers, programmers, artists, scientists, ... .

As for damaged: since extroverts see introverts as inferior and different, they often pick on them, bully them, abuse them. So many introverts end up psychologically damaged. But the damage is not the cause of their introversion.

Disclaimer, I'm an introvert, I was born as one, and it's as much a part of me as for example my gender is.

It makes sense. Recent research found a link between genetic damage that weakens the blood-brain barrier and Alzheimer's.
The current article shows that when the gates are open, pathogens enter the brain, and the immune system responds by building plaques.

You can only capture the interference pattern if you create it first, meaning illuminate the scene with coherent light, then let the reflected light interfere with part of the beam (the reference).
Taking a holographic picture in daylight wouldn't work, you need laser light illumination and an extremely vibration-free setup, meaning the whole thing would be impractical.
It's probably more interesting to try to capture the phase of the light directly, or less difficult, the light field (see Lytro for example).

You may also want to add:

Yup (well, a special sub-case):
"Some 80 per cent of the heavy elements in the universe likely formed in collapsars, a rare but heavy element-rich form of supernova explosion from the gravitational collapse of old, massive stars typically 30 times as weighty as our sun"
Link

This is borderline ridiculous. There are much better ways to measure these kinds of effects than to claim the particles would cause damage in people.
We have all these detectors and big tanks of fluids all over the world, tailor made to precisely measure these kinds of interactions (mainly for cosmic rays and neutrinos), so why would scientists want to use imprecise measurements such as undefined damage done to human bodies? How do you even prove the damage was done by particles from outer space anyway?
I'm not sure I'd call this science anymore...

So the developer of this library also created some benchmarks in which this library performs better than a legacy library?
I would be a lot more impressed if the benchmarks were created and performed by an independent developer.
Also, how much did this strip from the original implementation, and does it still perform all needed functionalities?
Also, how do we know this new code doesn't contain vulnerabilities? Rust may protect against buffer overflows, but it will do nothing against using cryptographically weak algorithms, or things like timing attacks.
The 10% or so speed improvements are not worth it if it's not 100% secure and feature complete.

The thing everyone seems to miss is that the Nature publication has nothing to do whatsoever with Schroedingers cat. It's about transitions in quantum energy levels, not about quantum superpositions.

Phys.org then connects the two via the "logic": cat -> cat jumps -> energy jumps, even going so far as to claim they can catch the cat mid jump. But no, they can reverse a quantum energy transition while it's going on, which is something completely different than reversing the collapse of a superposition (which is impossible).

That only works if you put it on a local compost heap.
People opened up old land fills to clean/clear up the land, and were surprised to find 20 year old compostables that should have decayed but hadn't.
It turns out that when you compress garbage, and put layers upon layers, there just isn't enough oxygen for things to break down.

As to recycling plastics, maybe it will work better with plastics that are specifically designed to be recycled, even when contaminated, as this recent news mentions.

The kid was lucky it wasn't a Ford Pinto.

It's all pointless word play (which is the norm for philosophy).
If you define "art" as something that can only be made by a conscious being, then obviously current generation AI will never be able to produce art, as they are not conscious.
On the other hand, if you define art as something that can be experienced by a conscious being, regardless who or what made it, then current generation AI will most definitely be able to produce it.
I'm more inclined to the second definition, as art is in the eye of the beholder.

You can do the same word play with "artist". It can be defined as either a conscious entity creating something it considers artistic, or anyone/anything that creates something that other conscious beings find artistic.

In the end, the former definitions are basically examples of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, as they exclude everything except the proverbial Scotsman from the definition.

Interestingly enough, there's recent research that indicates some aging related ailments could be caused by too much accumulated iron.

Planetary rings are not accretion disks. So your statement is already wrong from the first two words. Even so, there is evidence that some of Saturn's moons were formed partially out of condensed ring material.

The Big Bang theory has little to do with ring mechanics. Maxwell already had a comprehensive model of how the rings worked (based on Newtonian physics) 70 years before Lemaitre posed the idea of a Big Bang.

Series 7 episode 10: Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS. It's called the Eye of Harmony.

I agree, but lets not make it so verbose. And don't forget neutral. So I propose:
s/h/it is going to hit the fan.