Why would anyone trust a company named after a set of crystal balls cursed to mislead or corrupt the will of the user?

I made a short comment about your source's well-deserved reputation for falsehood, a link to Wikipedia, and here you are monologing. Have a nice day!

Good lord! Why would you use such an unreliable source like The Gateway Pundit? Even when they are accurate, they're stealing their articles from sites that actually employ journalists. The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[34]

The Toronto Sun is part of Postmedia, an American-owned chain that exercises strong editorial control and is basically Fox North.

Canadian Civil Liberties Association seems legit, but the Canadian Constitution Foundation is part of the Koch Atlas network, slipping far-right American money into Canadian politics.

That doesn't mean that they're wrong, but what they say should be examined carefully for fish hooks.

Continually using the stock phrase "peaceful protestors" doesn't make it so.

Examining the various verified equations, experiments, and theories, we don't find any variables regarding "see" or "look."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

We don't have any clue whether atoms are "empty" or not. This is because our human-scale concepts do not adequately describe reality at the atomic and subatomic levels.

We can only describe experiments' results as probabilities. That is, whenever we look atoms are as Sagan described: made of small concentrations of matter like the electrons and the nucleus. When we don't look and let particles evolve, well... by definition, we don't know. But we do know how the probabilities of outcomes of experiments evolve over time. And that is what the "cloud" is. Indeed, it's not a direct description of the atom, sorry. I can understand that the two concepts tend to overlap for a working scientist in the field, but they are clearly not the same.

In short, we should be perhaps teaching people about the limits of what we can know and explaining why would be more critical than a sterile chat about cheesy imaginary abstractions that make little sense scientifically but are easy to explain to people who haven't studied quantum physics.

There isn't really any proof that Waymo vehicles are driverless, only that the driver isn't in the vehicle. If you compare a dozen dubiously driverless vehicles to a million collecting data every moment and already doing a pretty good job at autonomy, which do you think will succeed?

The fact that the driver is not in the vehicle does not mean that there is no driver.

I believe that this was figured out in the amateur observer community before NASA confirmed it. I saw it go by in my twitter feed. Not sure I can find it now...

Linear Energy Transfer

It's not radioactive. When high-energy particles strike it, they break apart into lower-energy particles that are more harmful. So, you need enough shielding to catch the particles that break apart in the top layer of your shielding.

While radiation mostly results in transient errors, it can also cause latch-ups that blow a gate off of the die. For rad-hard equipment in space this is mitigated by silicon-on-insulator fabrication, so that you can't have a latch-up between the substrate and a silicon feature.

We could have REAL ZOMBIES! YEAH!

:-)

I hear you. Going to be an interesting future, if we live.

Someone who broke their neck and was suffering from paralysis. You can control a chair or exoskeleton. People who can not hear today have cochlear implants, this is not all that different and might (eventually) work better. Or speak, or see. Other people who are disabled in various ways.