And that is actually the problem with this "story": Self-driving cars are held to a much higher standard. That is neither rational nor useful.

Delivering equipment to the 3rd Reich to aid in the killing of jews. Funny how history repeats itself.

You do realize where you are, do you? This is not a classroom and some basic understanding is required to play. You clearly lack that.

Don't be a (mentally) lazy fuck. There is a large body of literature on this question.

Indeed. The difference is that everything you assume (not believe) to be a fact needs to come with evidence and need do be falsifiable (i.e. evidence that proves it is wrong could be obtained if it is wrong). Obviously, you, personally, cannot verify everything. But you can verify some things and it is expected that you did, usually in school. The only assumption that you need to be able to make is that all the other facts were verified by somebody.

In contrast, with faith/belief, there is no verification. Nobody has ever successfully verified that God (which ever one) does exist. There are some plausibility arguments, but they are all weak and many are basically not even argument but just serve to confuse the question by adding complexity. None of these meet scientific standards. And that claim is not falsifiable either: You cannot disprove God exists. What ever proof you have, it would be limited, because in some dark corner of the universe, God could be hiding away, ignoring everybody. Hence "God exists" does not even need the requirements for a scientific claim, regardless of whether that statement is true or not. This is the reason why Atheists say things like "God does almost certainly not exists".

In short, you can "believe" scientific facts (or not), but in doing so you do not participate in Science and you are not using the scientific method. Any claim to Science being about belief is simply a direct lie though.

PLA is also not very durable. In hot and humid climate, PLA can decompose in a few months. PLA is, in some sense, a great prototyping material but not suitable for most other tasks.

Yep, that nicely sums it up.

Indeed. And the issue was detected by looking at the data, finding fault with it and that is perfectly fine. Now, if the MAGAs and other denier-idiot assholes were right, the correction would never have happened. But it did. And that means things work and deliver good results. The process is just a bit more complex and takes a bit longer than their tiny brains can handle.

You clearly have not the slightest idea what the problem actually is. Well done, you are an idiot.

Well, if that is your take-away here, you clearly are a dangerous moron and asshole.

And no, there are NOT the same people. You are just lumping idiots in the press and in politics together with actual scientists because you have no idea how things actually work.

Nice denier nonsense you have there. The problem, which you are clearly not smart enough to understand is that this basically a permanent reduction and it is one that will be getting worse. You seem to think that at the end of the century, there is one point, where there will be some reduction. That is not the case. The reality is that each year will see an increasing reduction and that will last for a very long time. The problem is that very soon this will overtake total growth and then we will have negative growth each year.

Not a surprise that somebody like you does not get what is essentially a simple school-level "interest over multiple years" calculation.

Science is not broken, peer review is. And no, Science is not religion. It is the very opposite of it. A Science-denier like you will never understand that though, you are simply not smart enough.

I see you have never been part of this system. Your claims are pure hallucinations. There is no "enforcing" of any "consensus". Peer review checks, if done right, whether arguments hold up, data is plausible, etc.

The problem with peer review is that it is entirely unpaid while actually getting the publication can be very expensive, and many do it badly, just so they can claim they are doing it. I still regularly get contacted by journals wit requests to review one paper or another based on my publishing history. If it is open access and I am qualified, I will consider it. If not, I universally reject there requests now.

Not really. Science works on facts and evidences and sometimes there are errors and mistakes that then get corrected at a later time.

The Deniers work on stupidity. There is no fixing that and they do not need ammunition. They will just make stuff up.

Yep. Or "We will make our product worse until profits go up!"
Fascinatingly, this works sometimes, at least for a while. Look at Microsoft for a current example.