We have some observational constraints on the speed of light.
11 billion years ago (when the universe was 2 billion years old), the speed of light was about the same as it is now. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.087...
Otherwise, the light crossing certain objects would be different. This result is essentially independent of cosmology.
I guess that the cosmic microwave background also places limits. If the speed of light had been infinite at that time, I suspect the last scattering would be affected. This is ~300.000 years after the big bang.
But at the time of inflation
So you are hung up on reverse last-Thursdayism or a nirvana fallacy. Gravity could stop working any minute, we do not have proof it will work tomorrow. Science can not bring the type of proof you are looking for.
10-15 years ago, when these models where created, they predicted the future. Now that future is here, so we are checking their predictions against real observables.
And those from 10-15 years ago have successfully predicted the increase observed over the last decade. Not only that but they also predicted the warming in individual locations, the increased weather extremes, etc.
That's very heart warming, but not proof of the success in predicting even more extreme outcomes. Before I jump on the panic and tax band wagon I'd like to see some real proof, not expectations.
That these models have correctly predicted the future is the proof that they work. Why is that not "real proof"? Not sure if you are hung up on last-Thursdayism or a nirvana fallacy here. Fine, there may be another model or different parameters which are the true ones. So what? The used parameters gave the correct predictions, so we can't be way off. And climate scientist do study and worry about such systematic errors. Do you honestly expect that another parameter will suddenly give a sine curve in temperatures, saving us in 2020 without any action?
Sure scientists discover new effects and you see them in the news, but they are usually minor modifications. The main message and outcome has not changed in decades, i.e. accelerated warming, increasing sea levels, more extreme weather.
You will have to admit though that tablets and smartphones these days feature apps that are easy/intuitive to use and often beat clunky desktop apps with slow development cycles. Bringing such features/approaches to DEs would avoid being stuck with 1990s desktops. Maps, weather, interactive notifications and lessons learned from Mylyn are a good thing for the diversity of Linux desktops.
Climate models contain plenty of physics. And those from 10-15 years ago have successfully predicted the increase observed over the last decade. Not only that but they also predicted the warming in individual locations, the increased weather extremes, etc.
Every model is an approximation of the real world with some degree of accuracy. These ones are useful and give insight into the most important physical mechanisms at work.
My UK bought Nissan LEAF has a noise generator that operates at low speed. It creates a high pitched wine which alerts people that the car is near. Besides that, the A/C system fans also make a fair bit of noise. If I want to go into total stealth mode I can turn off the A/C and the noise generator and then creep around car parks startling the unwary. I generally just assume people can't hear even when driving my Mini so I don't think this is going to make a massive amount of difference other than for the blind who obviously use their hearing more so I can see the sense in this. Odd that it wasn't already required in the US.
My BT headphones work perfectly well with my iPhone and MacBook. Wouldn't want to fart around with wires after having these. Sure, I've got some nice wired over ear headphones at home but when I'm out and about the wireless ones are great and support AAC so don't sound all wooshy like some more basic ones do. No dongles for me.
If they need Office but don't want Windows, what is wrong with an Office 365 subscription? Works in a browser and if it is wonky then you just need to tell MS to fix their shit. MS is all about the cloud now so they sell a browser based Office solution. Sure, it comes with the desktop version too and I have Office 2016 on my Mac but in the absence of the desktop version, I can use the browser. Desktop OS support is expensive and horrible and Windows is about the worst to support so stick with Linux and if they need Office, get Office 365 and keep Linux. That is unless MS forces the issue and makes it more expensive to just have Office 365 rather than Windows 10 and Office 365. That would never happen though......would it?......
Yeah. I am very disappointed. I really want OSX, I consider it a lot superior to Windows or Linux, as a desktop solution.
I have been using Apple since 1997, and went full Apple when they switched to Intel.
Their hardware has been really good from 2006-2012, then other factors seemed to become more important than having good hardware.
I have been in the market for a good Apple desktop for a while now. Instead I ended up buying a second hand Mac Pro 2012, putting a MacVidCards Nvidia GTX 980, 32 GB RAM and some SSDs into the system. This old machine comparable or better than anything Apple sells today.
I consider the new Macbook Pro a joke. I'm typing this on a 2011 MBP and I see no reason to upgrade, only downsides.
I would need to buy adapters for all my peripherals, as the new MBP has no Ethernet, DVI, mini-displayport/TB2, USB, SD-card, CD/DVD, and most importantly no magsafe connector. My 1GB Radeon HD 6750M might be a bit on the weak side, but they would need to provide Nvidia with CUDA for me to consider a new video card a big improvement. Also my 4core i7 is a bit older than the new skylake but not a very big deal.
I have upgraded my RAM to 16 GB already, I would have expected at least a 32GB option for the new model.
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison