Not quite true. Very recently registered and non-registered users can't create articles. There's a page for them to suggest those articles to people with the amazing skill of creating a username and password.

What exactly is "the public"?

I feel that analogy might just be more complicated than the actual math.

Because, in the end, misinforming is often worse than not informing. If there's no discernible way for the people reviewing the article to check if it's valid, there's serious concern about PR and marketing injecting false information into your supposedly neutral encyclopedia, misleading everyone using your site.

The line is going to be somewhere. They have verbal debates about all-but-the-most-obvious of deletions(which officially still require four eyes, one pair to propose speedy deletion, one to delete).

Yep, and there are like 2 dozen python wikis where no one would mind a write-up, and links. Sometimes things just aren't really encyclopedia topics. And that's fine.

Wikipedia, in spite of all odds, somehow manages to hold onto a tiny reputation for informational quality. Part of that is not having more information than the users can reliably fact-check. And I've never held it against wikipedia if I look something up and it just doesn't have an article. I fall back to the whole rest of the internet right away.

Wikipedia has rules. While those rules exist for good reasons, by nature of being rules they are most easily navigated by bureaucratically minded, officious mindset.

People have this false mindset where wikipedia, by virtue of their "anyone can edit" policy is an infinite bastion of free expression. When really, it's just a whole lot of people disagreeing and squabbling and working and editing to make and upkeep an encyclopedia.

At some point there will be an article on Wikipedia, that only meets Wikipedia's notability requirements due to media spillover complaining about the notability requirements.

I've calculated it's precisely the day after you die, which is also when immortality is invented. Tough break, duder.

Argh, it's like I've been sucked into Star Trek, and everyone just uses science terms for whatever, as if they're all related.

No. Not the zero point field. Not at all.

That's not what quantum tunneling is. Tunneling has to do with the phase-state of particles, and how it implicates their ability to cross force barriers that should reverse them under classical understanding.

It's a bit like if your car blinked into and out of existence every couple seconds, you could sometimes drive through a brick wall.

Because you only have to mathematically prove the model, then you can run arbitrarily complex pragmatic experiments on it. Rather than proving the arbitrarily complex thing you're testing.

Eh, it's the kinda thing any physics department at a doctorate granting university would have. As opposed to a cyclotron, or other sorts of high-energy physics tools.

It's not meant to be brain hurting territory.

It's like how zero gravity isn't possible on earth, but if you take a plane, and fly it in a parabolic curve matching G, the inside operates a lot like zero gravity.

This is like that, but for arbitrarily curved space-time, instead of zero G.

I'm pretty sure I like payroll to deliver every 2 weeks.

can it have life? We know life on earth adapted to survive on sulfur vents, which means sunlight based energy isn't necessary for life to continue.

But what about abiogenesis? Miller-Urey showed us that lightning was a very important component in amino acids first appearing. Is there a tidal or geothermal way to cause the same thing?

I'm pretty interested in the possibility of liquid water alone being enough.