So let me try to explain it this way.

We have an observable universe.

If you were at the far end of our observable universe, and asked "what is the observable universe from here?", you'd get a different observable universe.

Repeat this process. You have many different observable universe patches that overlap.

Join them as a union. You have a "master observable universe".

No matter how much you try, you cannot cover *EVERYTHING*.

If the old view -- inflation happened, and then stopped -- were true, you would have everything. Might take you a very long time (even Einstein wasn't sure the universe was finite), but you would.

This is saying that some areas are just outside of any such overlapping collections of observable universes.

I did read the article.

In a nutshell: once you look at the inflation not as a binary yes/no behavior, but as a quantum behavior with "yes over here, no over there, sort-of way over there", you find that while inflation stops in some areas, it continues in other areas.

It assumes the same laws of physics everywhere -- specifically quantum mechanics -- and concludes that there will be areas disconnected by inflation that cannot interact, that behave like disconnected universes.

The expansion rate will vary for a universe dominated by radiation energy, matter, or vaccum energy.

And, the key lines:

I don't know enough to peer-check this article. But the idea -- that if a quantum effect is responsible, then it has a waveform, and is not a point-behavior but has a probability spread -- makes sense.

Easy. Load it into a sandboxed simulator, and see what it does. It can't escape the sandbox, right?

Oh, right.

Actually, this is very serious the issue.

Early bitcoin mining was fast, cheap, and generated lots of bitcoin for very little effort.

If bitcoin had died, that would have been wasted.
Instead, it's ... extremely large amounts of potential wealth horded by a very small group of early adopters, and the people who came up with this in the first place are the earliest adopters.

Instead of people who inherited, or who can manipulate the dollar, the political behavior, the banking industry, etc, gaining all the money, it's now the people who manipulate others into saying "Hey, this new currency is better" who are gaining all the money.

Either way, it's inherently biased and unfair. It's not based on the work you do / what you contribute, it's based on what you started with; who/what you knew/did early.

Apparently, supreme court justices in a speeding car can tell the police officer who they are and get away with it.

Happened at least once, and then a book was written with the incident mentioned.

(No, I don't remember the details -- this was years ago)

Why the bleep don't we fire this guy?

"shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" -- this is clear evidence of failing to do his job.

He is appointed to protect and defend the constitution. Not to protect and defend the borders.
He is unable to perform a basic function -- reading and understanding the evidence -- as well as unable to perform a basic requirement of the job -- critical analysis of what people tell him.

All of this points to failure to do his job, and possibly incompetence at his job. And, a lack of good behavior at his job.

What, are you going to say that a judge has lifetime tenure? I don't see that in the constitution. Who said that? Oh, another judge? What gave them the power to give themselves lifetime job security when the Constitution does not?

This is the sort of study that demands peer review.

It is far beyond me to understand the details of this study, and it's claims. But it is absolutely fascinating, if true, even taking the Male-only Y and Female-only Mit inheritance factors into account.

When I see things like

then I know enough to know that the assumptions used matter, but also that I don't know enough to evaluate those assumptions.

Actually, the 13th amendment specifically permits slavery.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Someone who has been found guilty, and sentenced to jail, can be forced to work for the government (involuntary servitude) or lose other rights besides mobility and/or liberty (slavery).

If the "3/5th" rule were enforced, then states that take the view "you are our slave" would lose representation, and have a reason to NOT make them slaves.

Aha! It does not. So if someone did follow your advice, then ...

(did I just feed a troll?)

But if that were true, then when someone posted the "Test" case of
4111 1111 1111 1111
then it should have been obscured.

I'll test that right now

Emacs can be told to monitor CPU temperature?

Can it turn the kitchen sink on and off as well?

Canned tuna. About 50 to 60 cents per can; about 1.5 meals per can. Eat 2/3rds of it now, and keep the rest for a snack in 2 hours. Combine with a banana.

"Meal bars" -- some are basically soy protein plus vitamins and carbs. For about $1.25, you get a complete, but small, meal.

What do both of these approaches lack? Fat. For some reason, our society thinks "fat is bad", when it's not only necessary, researchers say it's actually a better fuel than sugar for 75% of the population.

And how many of those are filled by either fresh-out-of-school, too-young-to-know-their-value graduates, or by people imported through the "high tech visa"s?

"We can't fill this job, so there must not be a supply in the US, so we have to import" -- that's what people say to washington.

Not: "We're not willing to pay what this is worth, and actually train people who are skilled in how to use our system, so give us cheap people from overseas instead".

The old random number generator, that I believe affected every distribution of linux.

The bugged cryptography library / key generator that shipped for over a year, that I believe affected one distribution.

There are plenty of ways that a given section of code can only be understood by just a few people. Why constant X and not Y? Why is elliptical generation this way and not that way? Why insert a shift left one bit?

Heck, a more down to earth issue: How long was it before NTFS was understood well enough to be able to write to it in every case, given some strange features that had to be "black-boxed" reversed before they were understood -- and are you sure that there is 100% compatibility today?

That's just the areas that I know about; I'm sure other people have other issues that they keep aware of.

===

A much higher level question: Why is any program allowed to use getHostByName(), struct sockaddr, or decide to open a connection to machine X on it's own, without having to go through a system policy?

That's not a silly question. Yes, I know the history -- those had to be in user code when networking was changing 6 times a year. But for at least a decade, if not more, that hasn't been the case -- and there is nothing you can do to ensure that 100% of all traffic goes out through tor, is there?

I'm not calling struct sockaddr a back door; I'm calling it a security design flaw. I'm calling the whole "no program can write to the disk without OS control, but any program can write to any place on the network without any control" a security flaw. Heck, you could argue that being able to determine your real IP address is a flaw -- even if a spy had to send it out over tor, that spy could still reveal who you were.

[FYI, the alternative would be to eliminate the distinction between a socket descriptor and a file descriptor, and have network end-points created by open("/dev/net/hostname:port", O_RDRW) or something similar.]