Indeed, and I guarantee you that the teacher did not say "never use wikipedia" but through 2 stages of a guy on the internet saying something about his kids (kids are so reliable, literal and perfect), who said their teacher told them something that's how it ended on Slashdot. It's as senseless to quote a quote of a quote on Slashdot as it is to cite Wikipedia ;-)

Also the big problem with Wikipedia is the sheer volume of uncited stuff on it. If you stick to primary citations only, much of wikipedia is useless even if it doesn't say [citation needed] as a lot of it is written authoritatively with mostly extra ordinary claims cited.

E.g. I just grabbed something at random: "The terminal marked negative is the source of electrons that will flow through an external electric circuit to the positive terminal." - Objectively correct, but not something that appears in the citations referenced in the paragraph.

I don't think the rest of the world is going to be content to advance at the 19th century rate that you propose, they certainly weren't during the 20th century. The current acquisition rate of data comes out to something like one Library of Congress per hour just from IoT devices. The tools we have available to analyze it weren't even imagined a decade ago. The ability to distribute that analysis happens at exceedingly close to light speed. An exponential curve is easy to see once it has reached the 'knee' point.

Modifying the environment is fine but only if you do it with no thought or analysis whatsoever and are purely motivated by turning a buck. Then people will do anything to convince themselves that mankind could not possibly modify the environment.

Thanks, you said that much clearer than I would have. Unfortunately it seems to have been wasted.

Greece and Poland don't have universal healthcare either and they spend 1/4 of what we do per capita.

We do have a huge profiteering problem but there are other factors - it's a rich country so we can spend a lot, we have rampant obesity, the population is ageing, and we spend a lot on biomedical research.

That's the old model; papers are peer reviewed before publication. Unfortunately, reviewing papers is unpaid volunteer work that really doesn't give you any noticeable benefit to your career. It works by the fact that people do, in fact, want to help out, but now the system is oversaturated with junk papers, and the volunteer peer review system can't keep up.

You've spent now spent two days responding to my post saying "I don't want to discuss this" telling me that you want me to discuss this.

I understand why so many women choose the bear.

So we can conclude you hadn't actually looked at the data before you posted.

However, in response to your new post, which also lacks any sort of data:

Turns out we can measure the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide. It's not a theory, it's a measurement.

Temperatures do drop drastically during the hour of so of a solar eclipse, but we know that's not controlling climate because the number of eclipses per year hasn't changed. And, you know that we measure solar output.

Solar flares have not been shown to affect temperature on the Earth. They do look impressive in photos.

... there would be no reason for anyone to buy this. Good encryption exists without "quantum Internet", for much less money. And apart from the much touted but very questionable security of "quantum cryptography", there is nothing of value to be gained from a "quantum Internet". No, data will not travel faster than light. No, there will not be a magic speed up of computation. This emperor is naked. Can we please end this hype and invest into actually promising new technology?

I agree about conservatives but it's also liberals, who have a fundamental aversion to making rational cost/benefit healthcare decisions because they ultimately don't believe that money represents anything real and finite.

... and indeed the house I live in is at that age. No way would I make functionality of my home dependent on something from a company that is well known to abandon their services quickly, suddenly, whenever they please. https://killedbygoogle.com/

Wait, you have help writing a personal statement and the best you can do is just be a shitty shill? What are you trying to convincing us of, that this service is really worthless, or that you are?

... to buy all the new "Who looked at what exactly for how long?"-eye-tracking-data that will soon be harvested from the users.

well, part of me suspects it's related to files not being deleted "everywhere". I've got an Mac mini, a few iOS devices, and I have iCloud folders on my PCs as well. It's like playing whack-a-mole. I can totally see something "putting back" files that were synced outward at some point.

This was my thought as well. Managing synch - especially with photos - between devices is one glaring area where Apple's "just works" reputation is sorely overestimated. I constantly think I have photo sharing turned off across the devices in our household - and yet devices are always "storage full" because my wife's photos get pushed to my children's iPads, and vice-versa.

It could be done, but not without completely re-inventing healthcare in America, including our expectations about 'consumer choice' (laymen telling the doctor what we need) and over-treatment (spend $1000 on an MRI even if there's a tiny chance of it helping - or get sued), and throwing expensive care at lost causes, especially at end-of-life. We need far more teaching hospitals, to create more physicians with cheaper education and less demanding jobs but who are paid less money. We need to rip out the whole private insurance market, which is enmeshed in the job market and taxation. Then we'd need the public to vote for the taxes to pay for it.

I hate to say it can never happen but after watching the trajectory of Obamacare, it's hard not to.