More explicitly, they are names given to a proposed solution to the problem of discrepancies between models and measurements. Measurements show that objects in the universe move in a way that isn't fully accounted for by the gravity of all the things that we can see (that is, the stuff emitting or reflecting light), so the proposed explanation is that the discrepancy in motion is due to the gravity of things that isn't emitting or reflecting light.

This is a hypothesis. It fits the facts we have so far. We still have to find evidence that the hypothesis is correct, or that the hypothesis is wrong. That's how science is done. You come up with a hypothesis that fits the measurements you have, then you look for ways to see if the hypothesis is correct.

The geothermal plant already exists: https://www.globalelectricity....

Apparently, Microsoft was proposing to build the data center there and tap into the existing geothermal power, not build new geothermal power (the summary was a little confusing about that).

Jensen Huang to college grads: "Run. Don't walk" toward AI

https://www.axios.com/2026/05/...

Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang told graduates at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh yesterday that demand for AI infrastructure is creating a "once-in-a-generation opportunity to reindustrialize America and restore the nation's capacity to build."

Why it matters: With many college grads fearing AI could obliterate their career dreams, Huang pointed to boundless opportunity as a "new industry is being born. A new era of science and discovery is beginning ... I cannot imagine a more exciting time to begin your life's work."

Nvidia, which makes AI chips, is the world's most valuable company. Huang told 5,800 recipients of undergraduate and graduate degrees that the AI buildout will require plumbers, electricians, ironworkers, and builders for chip factories, data centers and advanced manufacturing facilities.

"No generation has entered the world with more powerful tools â" or greater opportunities â" than you," he said. "We are all standing at the same starting line. This is your moment to help shape what comes next. So run. Don't walk."

"Every major technological revolution in history created fear alongside opportunity," Huang added. "When society engages technology openly, responsibly, and optimistically, we expand human potential far more than we diminish it."

Full speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The difference is that electric cars and trucks primarily charge overnight, when the demand for electricity is low.

You don't need to improve the grid capacity to serve people charging when you have excess capacity available.

That was a quote pasted directly from the Psychology Today article linked, but a quick google shows you're right, no support for that statement. Possibly the phrase "usage rules" (PT's phrase, not mine) meant recommended practice (at the time the article was written) and is not legally binding.

Wave power is generating electrical power from energy that's already present in the ocean. If you don't use it to generate electrical power, it will eventually turn into heat from damping anyway.

Ketamine is a Schedule III controlled substance: having accepted medical benefits but abuse potential. Usage rules mandate that the drug cannot be taken at home. Patients are observed at least two hours after receiving the agent and typically receive psychotherapy and other treatments for depression.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

Quoting Gerard Sanacora, M.D., Ph.D. Director of the Yale Depression Research Program and Co-Director of Yale’s interventional psychiatry program: “Large amounts of data suggest that your ability to make rational, correct decisions is completely disrupted when you take ketamine, as long as it’s in your system... People can hear things, see things, feel things differently. The physiological and psychological reasons are the main reasons the FDA declared Spravato [Ketamine] safe only in a health care facility under supervision.”

Yes, it's the albedo, and also yes, too small to have a significant effect compared to the main driver, the greenhouse effect..
The summary actually states this:

If the latest estimates are right, Shindell said, microplastics might not be an enormous source of atmospheric warming, compared with massive contributors such as cars and trucks, belching industrial plants or even burping cows.

But then undercuts that with

"But not a trivial one, either," he said.

Spoiler: yes, it's trivial.

"the report suggests defenders should focus less on tracking specific groups and more on stopping common tactics like credential theft, remote access abuse, and large-scale data exfiltration."

Both!

They're not mutually exclusive.

Yet another example of whataboutism." Saying "X may be a problem" does not imply "no other problems exist, we should look at X and nothing but X".

There's another whataboutism fallacy here, accusing the person posting as having a particular opinion on a completely different issue ("And the ban of golden rice people like you supported.") What does the phrase "people like you" even mean? People posting about agriculture on slashdot that include links to NIH?

The average number of children per woman in Switzerland is 1.29, about half of the population replacement rate. Stopping population growth in Switzerland has nothing to do with controlling breeding.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/v...

Good point. A highway with no ramps and no exits would have no traffic at all.

That was Laffer's claim.
The argument he used to support this was little more than "it seem obvious, doesn't it?"

There's very little actual data showing this effect. If there is a peak in the Laffer curve (above which the tax revenue decreases with increasing tax rate), that peak must be at a tax rate much higher than what we see now. In all the cases of the US or Britain cutting income tax rates, tax revenue did not increase.
https://maseconomics.com/laffe...

Turns out that this has not proven to be the case.

I think you misunderstand the Laffer curve. Laffer suggested that when tax rates are increased, the amount of revenue generated due to the tax would increase to some point, then at higher tax rates start level off and then to decrease, since there would be a point at which people would stop earning money if the government took too much of it away. There has always been fierce contention as to where that peak of the Laffer curve is.

The difficulty is that there never been a good analysis showing where that peak is. The US, for example, had a top marginal tax rate of 91% in the 1950s up until 1963, yet not only did corporate presidents not only stop working, the economy was booming.

So, no, the statement "when taxes go up, tax revenues goes down" is not supported by history.

Bingo!

You got it. They are indeed all taxes, different types of taxes.