The real question is "Will they re-release the roadrunner cartoons?".

Do you really think fiction is a reasonable source of facts?

Remember that models used from a decade or more ago always make simplifying assumptions, and that those tend to be unquestioned until data shows that they must be. Even now climate models can't handle all the variables known to be needed. Turbulence is *extremely* difficult to handle. And there probably is some "butterfly effect". The way that's normally handled it to run an ensemble of models with slightly different conditions, but they may all make some of the same simplifying assumptions.

Well, panspermia is possible, but not extremely likely. OTOH, if life started on Mars, it could well have spread to Earth on impact debris. The further away, the less likely. But remember that yeast have survived in space conditions for months, perhaps years...and that wasn't in extreme cold (though it was in inactive form).

OTOH, years is different from centuries. And for interstellar trips in a comet, centuries wouldn't be enough.

Those are descendants of LUCA. A better question would be viruses, because in that case we don't really know. (There aren't any ribosomes. [OTOH, if there are descendants of another origin, they've massively adapted.])

OTOH, we haven't checked all life on earth. So assertions about universals should be viewed with that in mind.

No. The mapping of nucleotide sequences onto amino acids isn't predetermined. We've built in the labs versions that are different.

OTOH, the argument still isn't good. It could be a low, but not extremely low, probability. In that case the first one to show up could have a VERY strong advantage. And we haven't checked all life on Earth, so the assertion that they are all the same hasn't really been proven, either.

We are pretty certain that the appearance of life involved some very low probability events, but that there were a lot of environments around with lots of different samples for a long period of time, so a "low probability event" should be expected to show up (even if not any particular low probability event).

Different groups of people designate street crossings and manage school buses. Ideally you're right, it should be fixed. Now get two different groups of people with different priorities to agree.

If you don't like the rule, manage it with school bus routing, but prepare to need twice as many route miles along lots of segments.

That's the "routing problem" I mentioned.

Some times there aren't any marked crossings for half a mile. Perhaps this could be seen as a school-bus routing problem, but saying "use the crossing" is only reasonable sometimes.

I could see anti-authoritarianism. Most actual jews that I've met have been nice people. The government of Israel, however, is vile.

OTOH, I don't see any sane way to deal with the situation. The comment "surround the place with hazard tape and stay away" has a lot going for it.

You left out the robots. Enslaved to do what when the robots are cheaper?

Be careful there. Lots of AI is being put to silly, useless, or unreasonable uses. OTOH, lots of it is being put to extremely productive uses. (OK, 20% improvement in output, but also an increase in expenses.)

ISTM, that PART of the AI hoopla is a bubble. Possibly much more than half. But the other half is not a bubble, and is growing rapidly. What the collapse will look like depends in part on how much the productive segment grows relative to the other part before it happens.

It wasn't from "a random influencer". It was in a popular science publication, and I believe they were quoting (or perhaps paraphrasing) the person who invented the term.

Does it have a "legal definition"? I doubt it. So for regulations I think it means whatever the person enforcing the regulations wants it to mean.

That really depends on exactly what definition you are using. I suppose you could argue that yogurt could be made at home in a normal kitchen, but cheddar cheese couldn't. And I've never actually seen anyone make sauerkraut, though people certainly used to do so.

I.e., the first published definition of "ultraprocessed" specified "things that couldn't be made in a normal kitchen". I'll agree that it's a very sloppy definition, but I haven't heard a better one.

It varies from time to time. In the 1940's it was common for folk to get tattoos, at least in the US Navy. Ozzy the iceman was covered with tattoos. (Of course, since he was killed it might indicate that he was something analogous to a criminal, but probably not.)