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

Book delivery courier is also basing their revenue model on the transmission of someone else's copyrighted content. McGraw Hill isn't suing UPS.

No. Theory can be correct for some purposes. For the purposes it is not correct, some other theory (say, theory1) can be thought of. Now theory1 might hold for the purposes that original theory still holds, and as simple to apply, in which case theory can be simply replaced with theory1. If not, both theory and theory1 co-exist, remaining valid, while claiming nothing about being "true".

That is why new revelations do not cause applications of science to stop working. Hence the theory on which those applications are based, is still "valid". Is it "true"? That is a stupid question - even the new and improved theory is not "true". There is no "true" in the philosophy of science - only valid for a purpose.

Even "scientific" theories of periods when science wasn't defined as well as today, are valid for some purposes. Heavier objects fall to earth faster than lighter objects - that is true in many cases. Of later theories - your stand holds even less water. Newton's laws, while being "wrong", still solve an enormous number of problems. They are "valid" for lots of purposes. And quantum + relativity theories that are "new and improved", still fail to precisely explain everything - and might predict something very incorrectly some day. That will not make them "wrong", because they are not "true" today. They are just valid for some purposes.

You are using the wrong definition of "wrong". As far as I can notice, the survey doesn't define "doubt". So any definition that fits the context cannot be said to be "wrong".

Doubt could mean the slightest chance of it being false, or a reasonable chance of it being false. Both definitions fit the context. Note people doubting things just because they weren't there during the big bang - they are just expressing their inability to be absolutely certain.

It is just a bad survey, like most others. See questions are lumping multiple assumptions - "universe beginning with a big bang". So one has to doubt it if one doubts universe didn't exist before big bang, and also doubt it if one doubts there was a big bang at all.

There is possibly, or likely a science ignorance in the US public. But this survey proves nothing either way.

I agree with you when thinking from the perspective of an individual - one can be said to be feeling entitled indeed for all these expectations.

But from the society's perspective - SHOULD it be so hard to get an education ? I see this question in this regard - and I cannot agree education should be so hard especially these days. An immense amount of knowledge has been amassed by man, and productivity can be improved immensely by at least some specialization , and acquiring knowledge should help.

Now knowledge CAN be acquired without college (or formal education), and can be applied well. But formal education makes it easy to acquire knowledge and improve one's usefulness to society using it. Readymade food can be acquired without formal restaurants by knocking on many doors and negotiating with door openers for food, but formal restaurants make this business much easier.

Don't you think that this idea of acquirability of knowledge without formal education has taken root in US precisely because of formal education being difficult? Taking an example from fiction - Sherlock Holmes was the summit of amateur excellence but he acquired a lot of his early knowledge in university (or maybe college) setting - in chemistry, poisons, maybe more. A huge storehouse of easily accessible practical knowledge can only help, right?

Given that everyone will benefit, even people whose kids do not make it to the most prestigious colleges, by improving students' future usefulness to society, why is there such a revulsion for highly subsidizing education?

Most OSes and applications have a habit of creating, editing and destroying small files - for maintaining state, cache etc. Overall, it is not surprising for an average PC to manipulate files at multiple hertz.

On Linux, home directory and /tmp get hit the most. /tmp can be moved to memory resident volatile tmpfs, so on Linux this advice amounts to keeping /home in SSD. / on SSD helps in booting fast.

On Windows, C: - people use hardcoded temp/documents/user profile directories, and C: on SSD also helps boot fast.

In that case, your conclusion of "RedHat lover" on a mention of yum was wrong, if RedHat means RHEL. Fedoras, the latest, riskiest and cutting-edgest ones, do use yum; and they do support upgrade.

Every sentence in your post about Indian law and business environment is false. Most verifiable by 15 second Google search, some run deeper - might take 10 minutes.

Not if odds of losing $200 million in this way is one in a billion.

Ok, telling the second time - they buy batteries but these agreements are NOT about those.

And of course you conveniently ignored that manufacturers do not even want a liability with an upper bound at the sale price.

Yes, the article is not the best, but this is the one I found in a hurry that deals with the complete issue at once rather than a one day news update at a time. All this transpired over some months so better articles are some 50 in number, each adding a bit to the story so far. But the issue is quite famous.

And no, you are caricaturing the isssue by your battery example. India is not going to Canadian manufacturer for $300 batteries. The agreements being discussed are for billion dollar deals, over years.

If someone were saying it is ridiculously easy to not cause an accident at nuclear plants by making a mistake in mowing grass, yet no company is ready to undertake that including the risk even at twice market rates, this is a serious argument against it being ridiculously easy to not cause accident, right?

And India is ready to limit liability of manufacturer upto purchase price, but manufacturers are STILL not ready. That tells about their confidence in their own technology, doesn't it?