Yes, but siphon is not caused by that ambient pressure gradient. You can do a thought experiment to confirm that - assuming you've played with such equipment enough for an intuitive understanding.

Put the upper reservoir in a pressurized container, such that ambient pressure inside it is a little higher than atmospheric pressure at lower reservoir level. Put the lower reservoir in open, at atmospheric pressure. Try siphon.

Result - siphon still happens.

There is one more theoretical test you can do to show siphon is not caused by ambient pressure gradient - the fact that stuff flows from lower pressure to higher pressure.

That is only for small quantity of "ideal" gases - the fluid mechanical equivalent of spherical cow of uniform density.

Just cut the tube across its length, such that it becomes something like a canal without cover. Now try the siphon. Pulling on water applies equally in a cut open "tube", but siphon does not work.

So playing with gas shouldn't be necessary - though it might be fun.

Could it be placebo? Your conclusion coincides with naive expectations.

In absence of double blind studies - do you know incidences of people who didn't know the animal was looked after better, before eating the animal, and remarked that this meat was tastier than average?

Probably. And there was a problem doing that especially on this site - the users KNOW the meaning of beta.

99% users are already using non-de-plume. The name on my birth certificate is not bingoUV. Problem is, that from other posts some suspicion as to identity can be drawn, and the need to be careful will be enormous then.

So one needs to use a one-time non-de-plume. You can make another /. user instantly, but all the trouble of using a unique email ID, possibly even clicking on a link in that email to confirm it is really you etc. is too much for a single post. /. could allow people to make "quick" users without this trouble, but then those posts will be equivalent to ACs, we will need modifiers for scores of such posts same as we need for ACs. So non-de-plume won't help.

If you mean to say /. does not allow you to block ACs, you are almost wrong. You can set a modifier, to AC posts' score, and then browse at a particular score and above.

By choosing good numbers for these, you can make sure you never see AC posts, or see only highly rated AC posts.

That makes no sense. At the lowest level which we manipulate to make the "computer" compute - it is just electrons moving around in semi-predictable way. So why stop at "computer", the electrons moving around don't even "know" they are "computing". Electrodancer even sounds kind of ok. Going lower levels of implementations is not a popular way of naming tools.

No, we call them computers because their predecessors were actually used by the human user to do computations. And when people started facebooking on them, they forgot to rename them.

Frozen steel? Trust me, it's even less fun to crouch over liquid or gaseous steel - the typical unfrozen varieties of steel found in the wild. Or in a furnace, I forget exactly where they are found.

Model not quantifying the unknown unknowns is, of course, not surprising. But this is wrong -

There IS a higher true uncertainty, when taking into account the unknown uncertainty. And models ARE uncertain, at least in an unknown way.

The theoretical, philosophical possibility that the speed of light [in vacuum] is variable DOES mean exactly what you are saying it doesn't.

Trademarking low positive integer numbers beats design patenting rounded corners, I guess.

(If a,b,c then)

Is condition not limit. You used the word "limit", but wrongly.

And like I was trying to explain earlier too, the uncertainty you're talking about is only the uncertainty inherent within the theory - the known uncertainty, if you will. But there is another uncertainty, of the theory being imprecise - even the currently most advanced theory can have imprecision. It could even be not applicable to the environment you're trying to apply it, and this fact could be unknown to everyone.

So no, you cannot always quantify the unknown unknowns so easily as you're implying.

No, you laid too much importance to theories being "correct". And it is plain wrong (though part of your first paragraph) ,that "a theory is either correct or not ".

And the conditions a, b, c etc. need not be of the theory but the application. E.g. you want to shoot a bullet from a gun at 1000 m/s. As long as you are not concerned with microns of precision, Newton's laws will do you more good to calculate the trajectory of the bullet even though they are "wrong" in the sense that better laws are known (relativity) . The application decides which theory to use, not the theory itself.

And then by taking an unrelated job, shown a propensity to lose interest in that very something ?

The business administration crowd just recognized the HR idiocy of rejecting outright anyone without a degree , at times specifically business administration degree. Yes, they are reasonable people, not really causing progress in the world. But probably better than
1. an eternally undecided fellow, or
2. one who spends money studying a subject without a plan to earn back the money using that study
3. one whose plans of earning back the money didn't fructify ?

transmission of someone else's copyrighted content