I suspect the more likely plan is that this is a test of the precision formation technology they will need to build orbital gravitational wave detectors like LISA that will be sensitive to a different region of the GW spectrum that current ground-based detectors.

The _main_ point is to test precision positioning of satellites, not make shadows. For example, one very good scientific use of precision formations is that there are plans to have orbital gravitational wave detectors such as LISA. This will require three satellites flying in a very precise formation creating a triangular interferometer with 2.5 million km arms. This should be sensitive to difference frequencies of gravitational waves than the current earth based detectors like LIGO.

Well they asked for it by calling what they are doing an eclipse. An eclipse is defined as one celestial body obscuring the illumination from another. Similarly, putting one object into the shadow of another is not an eclipse unless those objects are planets or moons. This is why we don't call holding our hand up to shade our eyes or standing under a tree on a sunny day a solar eclipse.

Are you actually so obtuse that you did not understand my point which was that many people already buy the cheapest vehicles they can and so your level of safety is already determined by whatever minimum road safety standards you enforce?

No it does not just work in hindsight. The Greeks knew basic geometry - indeed they were the ones who came up with it! They knew that the Earth was a sphere and in 240 BC Eratosthenes measured the radius with an accuracy of a few hundred kilometres. This meant that they knew the circumference and the surface area of the planet and they also knew how much they had explored which was a lot less than the total area.

It WAS proven otherwise by the ancient Greeks themselves! Mathematical proofs are absolute. The Greeks knew with absolute certainty what the surface area and circumference of a sphere was given the radius. They knew the Earth was a sphere from measurements they made which as I mentioned above, determined its radius surprisingly accurately. Hence, they knew there was much more unexplored surface out there. Where possibly uncertainties would have come in for them is in not knowing whether the curvature of the surface was constant so, had they considered this (which they likely did not since they tended to think that nature like perfect geometry) that would have lead to some increased uncertainty on how much surface there was to explore but would not change the conclusion that there evidence of a lot of surface left to explore.

It's the start of the new culture war: Artificial Intelligence vs. Natural Stupidity.

There are already minimum road safety standards that cars have to meet as well as mandatory road safety tests for older vehicles. If these are not stingent enough in your country then you already ready have a serious problem with road safety because many people are naturally going to get the cheapest cars.possible.

...because it's partly your fault that the cost is so high.

In the case where it is entirely, 100% the result of something under the control of the other driver then I agree you have a strong point but the reality is that accidents are only rarely entirely the blame of one individual. In those cases where there is shared blame your choice to drive a more expensive car will end up costing the other person money for something that is not entirely their fault. Then there are the cases where there is a genuine accident e.g. a tyre gets a puncture and you lose control. Technically this is your fault but it is clearly an accident so why should you have to pay more just because the person you hit - arguably through no fault of your own, or at least no fault that you could avoid - decided to buy a Rolls?

I suppose that's why, in general, I tend to prefer no fault insurance (although I know it is far from perfect) since then everyone is covering themselves for the choices they make and not anyone elses.

That does not necessarily follow. Yes, the cost of your accidents would go up but the insurance company is now also making tons more money from selling insurance to those drivers who now earn Rolls Royces. Given that each company is selling insurance to a statistical sampling of cars that should match what is on the road they can - and I would argue should - make those insuring expensive cars pay for the larger insurance costs those cars cause. Indeed in areas with no-fault insurance this is exactly what already happens.

"Safe" drivers, defined as those who make fewer claims, do pay less for their insurance since normally you have a no-claims bonus and eventually even a "one-claim" insurance against losing it.

However, insurers claiming that they have to pay more because of electric cars is a very spurious argument because, at least here in Canada, the amount of your insurance depends on the vehicle you drive. An expensive sports car costs a lot more to insure than a compact car so, if EVs do cost insurers more then they should recoup that cost by charging EV owners more for their insurance.

This is factually wrong: you can see his paper here.

I do not know anyone in the field who calls it that.

We call it the Higgs boson and the Higgs mechanism for good reason. Yes, others contributed as is always the case for any physics result but one person or group always has to take it over the line to put it all together and make the breakthrough and that was Higgs. The rest is politics.

At least he lived to see his prediction discovered. The story in the linked article about him being told by a neighbour of the discovery though is utter nonsense since he was in the CERN auditorium in person when the discovery was first announced!