Exactly.

More, I think, it's that you can find news for free on the web.

Yes, there are some news sites you have to pay for-- New York Times, Washington Post. But just take a look even at slashdot comments when an article links to a paid site-- you instantly get half a dozen posts complaining about the "paywall" (and then one or two suggesting how to avoid the paywall.)

This requires paid journalists. Paying journalists requires making money. If newspapers don't have a means to make money, no, you're not getting in-depth investigative journalism.

So, your comment is just the flip side of the same question.

If Mastercard and Visa really want to block business activities with "an elevated risk of illegal activity," they should stop allowing people to buy gift cards with their credit cards.

That's the main way con men steal money.

So, you basically contradicted what you previously posted and explained it with "don't you realize I didn't really mean what I literally just said?"

OK, got it. When you post something, you don't mean what you say.

Not sure what you're looking at. There are dozens of images in the search; pick one.

Here, let me google that for you.

One may like it, but the etymological root of a word is not its English meaning. "Manufacture," for example, would mean "to make by hand" (from Latin Latin manufactura, from manu (Latin: hand) and factura (Latin: make)), but when we talk about robots manufacturing things, nobody objects.

Exactly.

The link you give does not give an experiment showing a gun with a barrel bent 180 degrees shooting backwards. It gives a computer-generated graphic.

If it did, yes, one example would show it is possible. I'm not sure, however, that this is really a statement about science. The science would be in how it works, not "it's possible to do this."

No. It's a theory.

So far it's a theory that hasn't made any predictions that have turned out to be true, making it (so far) a pretty useless theory for explaining reality. But the fact that it hasn't proved useful doesn't mean it's not a theory.

Insightful. About half the people I work with are Ph.D.s, and in general, they don't have their degrees hanging on the wall. If I see degrees on the wall, in general I'd start out thinking that they're likely to be a bit insecure. People who really know what they're talking about show it by knowing what they're talking about.

COVID is a virus. It doesn't have spores.

I don't interpret classic laws as primary, except in as far as that they are the ones that operate in the realm we inhabit. I'm not even sure what you mean by "do experiments show superposition happening on a scale visible to the naked eye." There is of course classical superposition: a right-circularly polarized beam of light can be decomposed into the superposition of x and y linear polarized beams. But that's not the same as quantum superposition, in which a state is a superposition eigenstates of a hermitian operator, and once you measure it, the state is only the eigenstate you measure. We don't see that.

Walking at a meter per second, I have a wavelength of something like 10^-24 picometers. This is the basic characteristic of, say, an electron, but there is not way to even think about it in the macro state. If I run head-first into a brick wall, quantum mechanics would say that I could tunnel through it, but unless the brick wall's thickness is on that order, 10^-24 picometers, the probability of that happening is truly indistinguishable from zero. We simply don't see quantum effects in the macroscopic world.

But he didn't say YOU couldn't see it. He said the HE couldn't see it!

iPhone is a phone from one company. "Android" is many companies. To be fair, you would need to compare iPhone sales to, for example, Samsung Galaxy sales.