If a person got sevely sick or died after believing lies that seems less important than if the wrong song played in the background of the youtube video?

About 20 years ago Lee Smolin published "The Trouble with Physics" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics) and Peter Woit published "Not even Wrong" where they described the core problem with String theory as people attached to the community to the general public of interest (i guess mostly scientists).

Since then, things have shifted a little bit, and the mindset is
changing. That does not mean that everything is peacy already - people who got their professorships 20 years ago may be heads of chairs right now.

I also am fully convinced (as a former experimental physicist who has nothing to do with particle physics) that sometimes it is necessary to follow and explore theories which do not result in immediate predictions. You only will know later if it did not work, and in the current interpretation on youtube there is a lot of hindsight.

That's an interesting link, thank you.
The "nuances or causal factors" do show up -- somewhat -- farther down that report:

Fair. MY point is that I don't trust that source because whomever/whatever wrote it made a logical error.

OK. But copied the quote from where? I can't find a source worded like that.

How is 868 a decrease from 813?

That is a sign of the sucess of the language. It means that there are a lot of envitonments in which it runs productively with a well defined scope, very often embedded into an bigger system or package.

Something

Which is exactly the problem. It is a very big and important project and in the current organization structure it seems to have a bus quota of one.

Oh, it's a good dupe. Some people are telling me it's one of the best dupes.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Solid oxide fuel calls can generally "autoreform" hydrocarbon fuels into their elemental parts so they don't need to run on pure hydrogen. They can run on natural gas, ethanol, methanol, even some on ammonia which doesn't emit CO2 at all. I don't know if *this* fuel cell has that flexbility but high temp fuel cells generally have it.

Gaseous hydrogen, green or otherwise, is a terrible fuel and I don't understand how any reasonable person sees a future for it.

Please go back and look at the post I originally responded to, and read it carefully, looking at its logic.

Yep. We all know that quote, and probably most of us agree with it.
There's a huge difference between "a little temporary Safety", though, and an absence of mass shootings.