Exactly!

We should all spend more time studying the history of science. There have been many instances when, for good reasons and bad, scientists have dug in their heels. The greater opposition to Darwin in the 19th century came not from religion but from science, as without genetics there were too many holes left in the equation. In short, "never" is too strong a word. Perhaps it's less common than we presume, but a fantasy about the essential open-mindedness of scientists is just as bad as a myth about them being querulous oldtimers who hate change as much as they hate kids on their lawns.

Now I am no physicist, but if expansion is slowing and could even reach 0, then it seems quite logical that the original expansion was always a result of the release of kinetic energy from the Big Bang. I get it that the data does not add up to what we would expect from a mere explosion with no dark energy, but still, if the expansion is not eternal then logically there is no fundamental or insurmountable reason why this expasion could not be caused by an event at the beginning rather than being continuously modified throughout the process by some unknown and invisible modifier. In other words, perhaps we need not scrap the standard model as a whole, but this really does seem to open the door for a major revision. Perhaps we might quibble about how to express the severity of such a revision, but I would at least argue that there could be a major philosophical difference between an ever-expanding cosmos and a was-once-expanding-but-may-even-collapse one.

Yeah. Copilot is comparable in many ways, but its failures tend to stand out. For example, it can't even export a table to Excel.

Funny, it sounds like this might be one of the few applications that might actually benefit from a blockchain!

The answer is simple: the media has lied to you. He is not the scumbag they depict him to be.

Um, except that the whole left/right thing is named after the United States.... maybe instead of redefining US politics to fit a European standard, we just shouldn't use a US-based metaphor to speak of European politics?

Lol, why is it that liberals think that black people and other minorities are somehow constitutively incapable of getting ID cards? That's just... racist. The reality is that the vast majority of us already have IDs. I'm Mexican and I've had an ID for longer than I could even drive. The only reason to avoid voter IDs is to allow or encourage fraud.

Harris is constant lies, fear-mongering, flip-flopping, catering to every kind of nonsense as long as it is liberal, and a complete and utter lack of understanding of basic economics. I'm sorry, but your hope is in vain.

Ummm... suuuuuuure...

I think you're confusing Ted with Kamala and Israel with Africa. Such bumbling inability to remember names forces me to conclude that your name must be Joe Biden.

I agree. I even benefitted from the ACP, but I think it was just another example of Bidenomics spoofing money to try to buy votes. After the program ended, AT&T voluntarily gave me a discount for almost the full amount. Sure, there might be one or two people who were able to get Internet because of it, but I would wager that the majority of users already had Internet, and the subsidy only encouraged additional spending. Is that bad? Well, it all depends on our goal. The Democrats tend to claim that their goal is to connect unconnected households. If that was the goal, I would wager that it was a failure. If the goal was to boost the economy by expanding government spending, then I guess the ACP did something.... Does that mean we should bring it back? Personally, I'd rather invest in programs that ACTUALLY help the poor instead of making it slightly cheaper for me to whing about the government on Slashdot.

lol, I'm guessing you're joking.

But just in case some people don't realize this is a joke, I will add that there are several reasons why it doesn't quite work like that. To name a few:

1. The idea of "more advanced" assumes a linearity to evolution that does not fit with natural selection (the "escalator fallacy" discussed by Mary Midgley)

2. While many genes perform multiple functions, these are not in any way planned, as though a gene becomes established because it does both A and B and therefore can replace two separate genes that each do only one task. Since genes operate by dictating the production of amino acids, in most cases their multiple operations are mere coincidence. Governed by natural selection, if such coincidences happen to be useful enough to promote the organism's survival over others, then the gene becomes established.

3. It is actually much simpler to suppose that excessively large genomes evolved by mere chance. In the first place, it is not as though so-called less-evolved organisms all have large genomes while advanced organisms have small ones. It is true that many apparently simple plants have huge genomes, but this does not mean that the line of evolution passes from large to small genomes. Rather, earlier versions of plants had simpler genomes which became much larger because strange copyerrors ended up producing some benefit. For example, a cell accidentally doubled a chromosome, but by pure chance this doubling did not lead to its death but ended up being read in such a way that it provided a benefit.

Importantly, what is especially facinating is that not all DNA really adds new information. For example, since we have two of every chromosome, much of our DNA is essentially just backup. I remember being in high school pondering how so much complexity about the human person could be encoded into DNA. I did some simple math, and discovered that human DNA is only about as much information as a clean installation of Windows XP! Clearly there must be more to what makes us human than just DNA, because we certainly seem at least a little more complex than Windows XP. Of course, epigenetics helps to explain the gap a bit. But at the same time, it's important to see that much of what we are is really a product of our individual development/environment, and is not strictly encoded into DNA.

Agreed. Adobe's behavior is still wrong, but it does make sense to change the logo.

Now we can have more videos like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...