Current evidence seems to be that a lot of it actually *is* junk...or more accurately "background noise". Sometimes the only significant part is the length, so you can chop out the right piece, and sometimes even that doesn't seem to matter. (Within limits, of course.)

Actually, that would make evolution make a lot more sense. There's a high background noise level, and what evolution does is amplify the useful signal. It used to be thought that the cost of establishing one mutation in a population was so high that it couldn't be afforded except on EXTREMELY rare occasions...but that didn't match the data. Neutral drift explained a lot of that, but perhaps there's more reasons. E.g. that most of the viable mutations happen in areas outside the normal developmental path, and then occasionally one is found to be useful. But that *requires* a lot of "junk DNA".

Well, it's got similarities to the steady state model, but that model didn't include ANY "big bangs". Everything happened in a very incremental fashion. I believe that Hoyle imagined individual Hydrogen atoms spontaneously appearing when stuff got too sparse, but he might have had protons and electrons appearing separately. This is more like the model in Jack Chalker's "Well of Souls" series...just without the "We're living in a simulation" aspect. (And without claiming that we're the result of manipulation by an elder race.)

My favorite answer is that the "big bang" is not unique. They don't occur often, but they do occur repeatedly. Possibly whenever the amount of matter within a light cone gets too sparse. So there would be *some* old pieces left around.

N.B.: Calling this a speculative model is giving it too much credit. It's just a Wild Ass Guess. But I don't know enough to convince myself that it's wrong.

It also seems to me that there is prior art. I'm sure I've gotten feedback from spammers pretending to be someone who was actually dead.

It really depends on what you're buying. Also, 15 years of 3.5% compound interest is not negligible.

The planning starts NOW. That will include rules governing construction. The AMOC stopping hasn't happened yet, and there's no firm estimate of when or even whether it will happen. If they start planning NOW, including changes in the rules governing construction, then handling the housing should be doable.

Also, doable doesn't mean easy or convenient. But the food supply is critical. So is the durability of their power generators. If they can't live there, they'll need some other way to adapt.
(Actually, I'm rather sure that housing is doable, since people have lived on snow fields since before the iron age. Snow based construction has a long and successful history. OTOH, I don't recall it ever being mixed with electricity.)

It's not just the immune compromised. Vaccines aren't perfect, and the only reason they're so effective is that they enhance "herd immunity". They decrease the probability of catching the disease if exposed and also decrease the probability of spreading it to others once you catch it. So if nearly everybody is vaccinated, they're pretty effective. If only a few are vaccinated, they're a LOT less effective.

If the summary is correct, there's no evidence because the FDA refused to provide any reason. So what evidence would you expect Moderna to be able to provide?

Yeah, that was a poor analogy. It's more like "since the last ice age". If the AMOC collapses, expect Iceland to become completely surrounded by sea ice, without gaps. It'll take awhile, but that's what to expect. (But you probably won't be able to ski from Iceland to Greenland.)

OTOH, expect this to eventually cause the Bering Strait to freeze solid. (I said "eventually". This would take awhile.) Also the US east coast would get a lot colder, though nothing like Europe. There's no really good historic model. We're in an ice age, astronomically speaking, it's only the CO2 that's been keeping glaciers from growing. But we've way overdone the CO2. The oceans are acidifying AND warming up. When they get warmer, they hold fewer dissolved gases (like Oxygen, Methane, and CO2). And it's happening too fast. When the oceans hold less Oxygen, it's harder for the sealife to breathe. ETC.

I don't think it's going to shut down the thermal conveying outside of the North Atlantic. The AMOC is just a part of a much larger system. But my *guess* is much of the heat would end up in Antarctica rather than the North Atlantic. Europe would get extremely cold, and Antarctica would melt faster than predicted. (Once upon a time there were forests in Antarctica. Of course, the other continents have moved since then.)

I'm pretty sure you'd have at least a decade before things got THAT extreme. Urgent planning needed, but the construction should be doable. Food seems a more difficult problem. Also, most geothermal plants have a relatively short lifetime. (I'm not sure about the ones based around volcanoes. I don't think those have a track record.)

But they wouldn't identify any specific problems. I.e., they're lying.

The normal strategy is to take them on one at a time...and have the expectation that after you've won a couple, the rest will start to fall in line without being sued.

That's the wrong problem. He's almost certainly planning to loft multiple satellites with each launch. But there are other problems it's reasonable to be dubious about.

I'm going to wait until he's launched a few to form a definite opinion...though I'll admit that I consider it unlikely.

It's possible that he's got an answer to that problem. I'll wait to form an opinion. (Yeah, I'm skeptical too, but I don't think one should be certain based on the available evidence. Also, there are several other potential problems, but maybe he's got answers.)