There's nothing wrong with the uncertainty calculation. It just needs to be understood as a lower bound to our true uncertainty. There are some really speculative ideas, like Linde's chaotic inflation, in which the age of the universe is much greater. I suppose the age could be smaller in case of variable speed of light theories. The chance of these alternative theories being correct is small, but I don't think it is something that we can quantify mathematically using a normal distribution of errors.
No. That's not a correct interpretation of the uncertainty at all. The uncertainty is based on measurements based on certain assumptions. The assumptions can still be totally wrong. We can accurately measure the expansion of space and use our models to project the expansion backwards to a starting point. Since the measurements are accurate, we can accurately estimate the age of the universe, assuming the models are correct. Our actual uncertainty is larger.
I would say that we are pretty damn certain about the main points of the generic big bang theory, but things get a lot more shaky when you add in inflation. The so-called pillars of inflation are garbage, but there is some pretty good evidence for inflation in the form of cosmic microwave background anisotropy measurements and models of large scale structure formation. I'm agnostic about inflation, since it's just too weird and ad hoc, but it seems to have a lot of support by the experts.
I don't click on stories about celebrities, but then again, I run adblock, noscript, and ghostery, so I probably don't figure into the analytics. I think idiots who care about celebrity gossip are less likely to run anti-trackers and are overrepresented.
It's not known exactly how to instill a culture of paranoia, but one idea is to subject employees to traumatic experiences involving police and/or gangsters.
It ranks up there with 2 for 1 sale on sponges at HEB.
It looks like you skipped over the part, "that doesn't rely primarily on luck".
And this is why we don't have mainstream encrypted email. Major email providers (Google) have too much to lose by fighting the US government.
You know what is more effective at keeping people poor? Barriers on immigration. You can't serious about the free market if you push for the free flow of products, but not the free flow of people.
- A little less money for those who must buy cheap Chinese products.
- A little more things for those who buy more expensive products.
Taxes are a funny toy.
And a little more money in the pockets of workers who make these more expensive (domestic) products.
Fair enough. But mass killings are so rare that you can't make meaningful statistics of them.
And this doesn't embarrass them further?
Homicide rates in the United States have been dropping and are the lowest since 1906 or so.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken
Hmm, interesting story, but how likely is it that a keyboard would ever get repaired, with or without the legislation? We live in a throw-away society, and really only a tiny fraction of people know how to solder, let alone are willing to put effort into soldering something that could be replaced for $5. There are definitely pros and cons to every law. Do the pros outweigh the cons when you factor in actual human behavior?
Because they don't want to believe it. Facts are irrelevant when wills are involved.