Interesting observation. After skimming the JAMA article I am not able to tell whether that difference is significant, but here are two quotes you might find interesting:
"The study cohorts had an average age of 75.0 years (95% CI, 74.8-75.2 years) in 2000 and 74.8 years (95% CI, 74.5-75.1 years) in 2012"
"Compared with the 2000 cohort, the 2012 cohort had a significantly larger proportion of those who were 85 years or older..."
It's not just the post: the linked article fails to name the country until the 7th paragraph.
Re: "small, little-known African country":
-- Liberia has more land area than Portugal or Hungary or Austria.
-- Liberia is well-known to USers as a destination for freed slaves in the 19th century.
Seems like the author of the article could use a broader perspective.
I object to your over-generalization. Here in the US, it's not uncommon to deal with first-generation immigrants both professionally and socially. In fact, I've been dealing with South-Asian-accented English speakers in the US my entire adult life (I am 60).
My personal experience relating to the above news item:
A couple of months ago I was called by someone speaking with a South Asian accent (I can't narrow it down more than that). He claimed to be calling from the FBI (not the IRS nor immigration as in the article) and he forcefully told me that I was in trouble with the law. His approach was unprofessional, which made me skeptical, so I asked to call him back. He told me to look up the number he was calling from, which did turn out to be the FBI office in Albany, NY. He even sounded _proud_ of this fact. Yes, the scammers may have proud of their ability to spoof my caller ID!
I persisted, so he referred me to his supervisor. The supervisor _also_ spoke with a South Asian accent and _also_ started bullying me about being in trouble with the law. At this point I knew it was a scam and hung up.
Had I been a good citizen I would have called the FBI myself to report this, but I was just glad to be done with it.
That depends on how the destruction is done. A good comparison is between China's destruction of Fengyun 1C in 2007 and the US' destruction of USA-193 in 2008. The former was done at a higher altitude than the latter. The former created 3425 catalogued(*) pieces of debris, some of which will remain in orbit for decades, whereas the latter created 174 catalogued(*) pieces of debris, none of which remained in orbit two years later.
Tiangong-1 is at a lower altitude than Fengyun 1C (perhaps obvious, since it's about to deorbit), so it's not out of the question for China to destroy it in a way that doesn't make a permanent mess. I'm not advocating that, I don't know whether that's a good idea, I don't know if China has the capability to do that, I'm just disputing your blanket assertion that it's an "absolutely terrible idea".
(*) I mean catalogued by the US military and made available unclassified. It's worth noting that the US military usually keeps orbital data about classified satellites classified. It seems to have made an exception for the debris of USA-193, perhaps for good public relations in discussions such as this one.
Not that I'm advocating what "geek" did, but it sounds less like genocide and more like ideocide (or "meme"-o-cide?).
No, they performed a measurement. FTA:
"Ten years after ACTIVE began,
Apparently not this time:
This page has a Two-Line Element Set, from which you can compute an ephemeris:
She has her own web site:
(presumably built by a boy after she contributed some design ideas).
Note that on the linked page she lists "Barbie ICB A Computer Engineer" _first_,
which suggests she still hasn't seen the memo about how bad it is.
>... it means giving up land that could otherwise be cultivated or developed. And that's something humans have never willingly done...
Perhaps you meant globally, and over many centuries. But in the US and since WWII you are wrong; we are willingly reforesting land that has previously been cultivated
From the linked article:
"Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s."
"the average standing wood volume per acre in US forests is about one-third greater today than in 1952; in the East, average volume per acre has almost doubled."
> 'a paper called: "It's All About The Benjamins: An empirical study...'
> 'cash the researchers offered, capping out at $1,
Because they never offered more than one "George", their paper's title is clearly overstated.
I think your post needs some clarification.
> After a while, space itself would expand meaning that the ruler will now be longer than what it was.
The expansion of space must be measured with respect to something. The usual idea is that space is expanding with respect to other properties of the physical world, e.g., the mean distance between electron and proton in a hydrogen atom. So, because your hypothetical ruler is made of atoms, the claim is that tomorrow it will take more of those rulers laid end to end to reach distant galaxies.
In contrast, one kind of "ruler" that _is_ changing when space expands is the wavelength of photons and other ultrarelativistic particles. If space expands by 1%, photon wavelengths increase by 1% (as measured w.r.t. your hypothetical 1 meter ruler made of ordinary material) and thus photon energies decrease by 1%. This change is the explanation for the redshift of light from distant galaxies.
> After a while, the space between the nucleus and electrons or within the nucleus itself will become too large, ultimately ripping apart for the fabric of reality itself.
I suspect you are referring to cosmological models that end with a "Big Rip". In these models, the amount of dark energy in a constant volume of space (as measured with an ordinary ruler) increases with time. Eventually, the density of dark energy becomes greater than the density of other kinds of energy, e.g., the binding energy of atoms. Then fluctuations in this dark energy will rip apart atoms.
Because the properties of dark energy are hard to measure, it is not yet clear how its density changes with time. The current so-called "standard model" of cosmology, Lambda-CDM, takes the density of dark energy as constant, and this assumption is consistent with our best current measurements. So, as far as we can now tell, we are not living in a "Big Rip" universe.
Inside the NSA.
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth