This. If it's a Tesla vehicle fire, there is *no way* it's not making the front page. If there was ever any doubt that what's shown in the news, regardless of the medium, so effortlessly controls what people think. No, no, not me, I'm an independent thinker and I check my sources, I don't have any biases! It doesn't matter, it affects us all. Including me.

Drivers definitely are guilty of harassing bicyclists, I've seen it with my own eyes. It's awful to see it happen and it should be reported as a crime. However, where I live in NY I'd say it's very common to see bicyclists disregarding rules of the road. They blow through stop signs, red lights don't exist, and don't yield to traffic that has right of way... forget signaling when they turn. I consider signaling bonus credit and in past ~10 years I think I've only seen that performed once or twice. Just *yesterday* I had to beep a bicyclist for running a red light, it would have been a collision if it wasn't for the fact I was driving below speed limit (because it's a dangerous intersection). The dude flew past all the stopped cars right through a red light. Not a care in the world. He waved at me. Really!? These offenders are ruining it for the bicyclists that actually follow the rules of the road by giving the whole group an undeserved terrible reputation. If they have a death wish or just plain stupid and wreckless, fine whatever, but do it some other way. Their behavior not only has severe repercussions. People die. People get crippling injuries. Even drivers, at least normal people drivers, will be traumatized for life when they unintentionally hurt someone else at their hand. It's just stupid.

Wow, that's some great candid feedback but some of it was a little off the mark. These people your describe definitely exist but you really shouldn't lump someone into that category by the sole fact they complain but haven't climbed the corporate ladder. I know plenty of people who are very good at what they do, very good at complaining, but also lack of certain soft skills which keeps them where they are. Complaining even could be the very thing holding them back. It's a bit dark twisted of a thing to say, but it's awesome when you have intelligent people working at low level jobs, even if they're not perfect in every way. Super heroes can have their flaws. Sometimes you can mentor them "up" but sometimes you can't. Then you can only hope they're being compensated enough to stay happy and tell them what a great job they're doing regardless.

I'd like these researchers the benefit of the doubt by saying a common problem with this kinds of studies is they fit the data but not reality. But really, you only need half an ounce of wisdom to realize that fitting 7.5 billion people into 4 personality types is an asinine blunder. Just a tad bit oversimplified to say the least. This is how awful stereotypes get started. Our brains sure don't like complexity do they? There's always a push to abstract information into small inaccurate subsets. 2 categories always seems the goal, black and white is so much easier to understand. Maybe we should applaud them for giving themselves 4 options instead of 2.

I'm still hanging onto hope your post was made with sarcasm but I can't tell because I know people that would say something like this. Regardless, there is so much wrong in this statement I'm having trouble figuring out where to begin. I'll give it a shot.

1. You don't "integrate" entire cells into your body like you're describing
2. There is no DNA transfer when you eat food to your body, at best (even though unlikely) it might DNA transfer might occur with the bacteria in your gut
3. This article is all about CRISPR taking advantage of weakened p53 genes in a cell, you should really read the article
4. This study has nothing to do with using CRISPR on food, it's using it on your own cells and putting them back into your body
5. Lettuce is usually not pluralized, in American english it's uncountable
6. It's CRISPR not CRISPER

Yes I was and what you're talking about is no longer called "panspermia" just something else. I'm sure there's a better more scientific sounding name than "Alien-made noah's ark" for the theory you're proposing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "Panspermia is a hypothesis proposing that microscopic life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophiles, become trapped in debris ejected into space after collisions between planets and small Solar System bodies that harbor life. Some organisms may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. Under certain ideal impact circumstances (into a body of water, for example), and ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, it is possible that the surviving organisms could become active and begin to colonize their new environment. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe."

You're not kidding. Not that I doubt panspermia is technically possible, but cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized octopus eggs? ... I'm trying to picture octopuses gently laying eggs deep inside a bunch of rocks, getting fertilized, frozen, getting hit with an asteroid but not getting destroyed during impact, impacted with such force it throws these rocks up into space, surviving a million/billion-year journey with no degradation in their structure or DNA, surviving yet another asteroid impact this time hitting Earth, and landing on a planet with the same life conditions as their home planet? I'm sorry but I'm finding Noah's ark to be far less challenging to believe than this story.

All energy production has environmental costs. What are you even comparing it to? Coal, gas, nuclear, wind, hydro? Solar is on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to environmental costs.

It's not just solar energy companies lobbying for this stuff. Normal people, solar employees, green tree thumpers, and other advocacy groups are in the mix too. You're making this sound like some kind of secret conspiracy instead of normal everyday par for course capitalistic, liberal, and democratic behavior.

This is how capitalism works. Companies see/create demand, they meet that demand. Then they collect profits. I dunno, you should try it sometime.

Demand? Hah, why ask for permission when you can just ask for forgiveness later.

Amen, and couldn't the "the leaders of the tech companies" say the same exact thing but in opposite, in return? All crime enforcement sees is darkness and crime, not the truth that a majority of people are law abiding citizens? But no, it's not sunny, rich, and happy all the time... that doesn't exist anywhere.

You say it as if it has some kind of special monopoly. For reference, see anything. Politics, science, health, legal, history, sports, education, technology, economy, etc. Endless examples anywhere you look.

Plywood that is weaker than wood exists. However the vast majority of the product is built and selected because it is stronger and more stable than wood. The greater the number of plys, the stronger it gets. Sure it has some weaknesses like bending strength but the trade off is a no-brainer. For nearly every applicable purpose, after crisscrossing the grain at 90 degrees and lamination its structural strength, resistance to warping, and and moisture resistance is vastly enhanced when compared to solid wood. Whether it's floors, walls, furniture, toys, almost anything you can think of, plywood wins. Except in beauty of course, whichis why it's hidden with edge banding! https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/docu...

While I wish it were that simple, it never is. Believe it or not, lots of smart people believe dumb things. Doesn't make them dumb though. People are really, really good surviving with cognitive dissonance while still getting other constructive or innovative shit done.

I said 'no' exactly because of fermi's paradox. As the paradox begs the question: where are they? Where are the "Kardashev" type 1, type 2, or type 3 civilizations? I believe in the existence of a great filter. Be it life itself, interstellar travel, distance, self destruction, any of those. So does that mean you believe they're simply 99.999999% invisible except for a few unidentified objects in the atmosphere from sparse eye witness accounts? Really? Whatever floats your boat but man, that's hardly credible enough to relieve me of my skepticism. I need way more than that. If a civilization was advanced enough to hide themselves in the electromagnetic spectrum in the entirety of outer space, they're being incredibly sloppy by showing up in our gaseous atmosphere.

It's not, actually. Not even close. There's only a handful of businesses that profit from war, the rest of the economy takes a huge toll. Sure, billions of dollars in weapons production sounds like a lot of money but in comparison to the rest of the economy it's not. It's less than 1/10 of a % in the US' near-$19T economy. Whatever gains your conspiracy theory thought there was, it would be inconsequential by the negative impacts on the rest of the economy.

Just try to think of any historical example where war was good for business. Only if you're not even a party to the war and watching from the stands is there even a remote chance, but still likely not since your trade partners are going to be taking a hit in the long term. Take even the US during WW2 which is often cited as an example. If it wasn't for the fact the rest of the world was simply pulverized, resetting the playing field, it wouldn't have looked like such a boon to the US. Not at all. I only see on arguable intangible benefit benefit of war, its tendency to jumpstart motivation. You get a boost to people's vigor, nationalism, efforts, and sometimes research. Computing and nuclearization may have been accelerated by a few years for example. Pretty heavy price to pay though, not worth it.