It's vacillating but lubricated with vaseline.

In Canada it's $20, despite the US constantly pressuring us to raise it (lol).

But neither of us have 200% import taxes.

There are LOTS of people who run companies that import stuff that doesn't meet legal requirements in the importing country. They're not going to stop. They're going to get more customers though, because they don't have to compete with untaxed direct imports.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. The problem with riling up delusional conspiracy theorists is that they're delusional conspiracy theorists.

Admittedly, riling up delusional conspiracy theorists with stuff that you actually did yourself is extra special.

to give us the time to disconnect them

That's the real bad news for the US, and very good news, minus some short term pain, for the rest of the world. Bye bye soft power, exhorbitant privilege, joint operational dependency via dictating what capabilities NATO members can and can't have, etc.

And reversing the policies, tomorrow or in a few years isn't going to make a difference.

You experience the quantum nature of the photoelectric effect whenever you try and dim an LED bulb with an old fashioned dimmer. There are lots of people who rant on the internet about it.

What do you mean by "it takes quantum mechanics to explain lasers and magnets, but we don't experience the quantum nature of them." This statement doesn't really make sense. I suspect what you mean is that we don't normally experience specific contrived situations that are purposely chosen to seem weird. This is true. It's pretty much tautological.

It also applies to lots of other things. You don't normally experience the blind spot in your eyes. That doesn't mean you can't understand it. You routinely experience, but don't notice many of your visual and auditory systems' other hijinks until a situation is accidentally or purposely contrived to highlight them, then the internet spends six months arguing about whether the dress is white or blue, whether an Elmo doll said a bad word, or how amazing some magician's performance is. Yet you can understand those things just fine, with a bit of effort.

All those examples involve confronting, and abandoning, implicit assumptions in the lazy way your brain "understands" things in its everyday experience. Most people's "understanding" of ordinary mechanics is very cartoonish, as in, much like cartoon physics. This is not a rhetorical assertion, studies back it up. To them, Newton's first law is counterintuitive, and certainly not something they think they experience in everyday life.

Quantum physics is the same, with the interesting difference that, at least right now, we don't know which of a fairly small number of assumptions are invalid. So you can pick the subset you like and there you go. The existence of multiple workable subsets is why we have multiple equivalent interpretations, and why we argue about which one is "right."

You contend incorrectly.

Interpretations are just stories. They don't make testable predictions. The math they're based on does, but for the most part they're based on the same math, so they make the same predictions. Where that's not strictly true, for example, path integrals and Feinman diagrams are often associated with many worlds, the math is equivalent, in the formally proven mathematical sense.

The human eye can detect individual photons.

Polarization isn't really classical. You see a quantum-only property of it when you look at an LCD screen with polarized sunglasses.

Also, magnets, lasers and fluorescence.

Pretty much everything white has fluorescent dye in it. Peacock feathers are lasers.

There's no particular reason to think we can't "understand" QFT. As mentioned in the summary, there are several equivalent interpretations and you can choose your favourite depending on which set of properties you hold dearest.

Most of the confusion comes because

1) people are taught quantum mechanics, which is wrong
2) people don't understand what a wavefunction is. Not the interpretation of it, the actual hard mathematical "this is what it is."
3) the Copenhagen interpretation quite remarkably claims "here there be magic" in the form of wavefunction "collapse," something that is not only entirely unprecedented but also causes a whole bunch of other problems that make up most of the wierdness attributed to quantum theory.

There are some possible disruptive technologies in tunneling. Microwave drilling looks like it might actually work and be a lot cheaper than conventional methods. That might be adaptable to tunneling. The Boring Company has built their own machines and does seem to be refining tunnel boring, although they're not doing anything super unconventional.

I don't know what msmash meant by that line, but the only place it appears is in their summary.

There's a LOT of remote sensing + ground truth data, where "ground truth" actually means what it says, and various models have been trained on and tested against it for decades.

Probability has lots of functionally equivalent interpretations. Ask a Bayesian and they will tell you that random variables indicate your level of belief. The simplest interpretation of the world is that nothing is "truly random." We use the concept of "random" to refer to unspecified complicated and unpredictable interactions.

Which is all entirely irrelevant to what I said.

The US national guard website is "configured to block access from [my] country" so I can't be sure, but I expect the "cyber soldiers" might be doing a lot of carrying backup tapes around and typing things like "tar -xz" and "passwd -l".

You can, yes. But if you wish to push your beliefs on other people you need to have something to back it up.

You can claim that those beliefs are based on the literal word of an omniscient god but it's a bit of a problem when you then decide that infallible god decided whoopsie, ignore that old stuff, here's the NEW stuff. It's also a bit of a bummer to make an argument based on Christian theology when your argument is heresy according to every major Christian sect.

Speaking of which, does anyone have any kindling?

This is certainly a viewpoint that was given in an influential book or two.

The actual stats suggest that MD planes were, if anything, safer than contemporary Boeing ones, and both were death traps by today's standards.

All the plane manufacturers had to figure out how to actually run a profitable business after their basically unlimited wartime funding ran out, and even more so after the cold war ended. The CEO of Boeing for ten years before the merger was an MBA.