What if the guy who designed the cowling fasteners at Boeing never actually had to use a wrench to take the thing off and on and made it so it is a stupid pain for mechanics? What if a fastener rusted due to failure of another more critical and warrantied part? Do you own Boeing stock?

Do you get paid to astro-turf for United or do you do it out of love of neoliberalism?

But why shouldn't we throw Boeing under the bus, just because we feel like it? Who cares if this corporation is treated unfairly, when I get treated unfairly too every day?

What if your reaction to strangeness says more about you than about the universe?

So, does the Michelson-Morley experiment successfully detect dark matter because it bends light, thus proving the aether does in fact exist after all?

Didn't Eddington already make a mockery of Occam's Razor when he noted that the universe is not only stranger than you imagine, but stranger than you can imagine? Can you imagine a universe where Occam's Razor is simply a psychological human rationalization, not an actual thing?

Has aether theory been disproved or just other interpretations seem to us to work better for limited cherry-picked examples?

Since the attenntion mechanism easily deals with logical contradictions without crashing, why assume classical logic is any kind of prerequisite for intelligence, artificial or otherwise?

What would Liberace have said about actual scientist recommendations that Turing be treated with estrogen injections for the disease of homosexuality?

Doesn't that chart show it in the middle, so pretty abundant? Why are there so many abandoned copper mines (e.g. in Ajo, Arizona) that become uneconomical because prices crashed, not because the copper ran out?

Why hype the zero-sum idea that the low efficiency is a hard limit that can never be exceeded, so everyone should just give up now and if not I'll cut your funding till you give up, because obviously this type of thing is just hype and no, I'm not hyping anti-hype at all, because wouldn't that be self-unaware, and am I not the Captain of this rational, super-consistent story I'm telling here?

"see! you don't need to worry about climate change! You can keep driving your Hummer!"

Why is that preference so distasteful to you, even if the pollution produced could be mitigated? Are you trying to change hearts and minds by using science to legislate your particular arbitrary preferences?

Does nature like it warmer like in the Jurrasic?

Are you saying that the free market externalizes costs like methane containment, and thus rationalizes not recycling because it's too expensive when you can just landfill your waste and let nature (or could the Fed buy climate bonds that would pay to contain it?) handle the methane?

If you examine the Sankey diagrams on the Lawrence Livermore National Labs site, will you too conclude that two-thirds of electricity generated is basically sent to ground because there is no human demand for it? Thus Washington has so much excess hydropower it sells it to needy states like California?