*phacism

Or, you’re holding a nozzle that sprays liquid. Just douse the speaker in gasoline.

Picture matches the tone of the hiring perfectly. Let him keep the job. I want to see how this plays out.

*imply

And the other half will just die, I guess?

Well, the walk did finally happen, so there were adequate suits, although one of the astronauts had trouble with the suit she was initially assigned.

You have to remember that of the 18 original suits, only 11 still exist, and something like as few as 4 might be on the station at a time. Also, the suits were originally intended to return to Earth often (shuttle days), but now are kept on the ISS longer and are maintained by the astronauts themselves. Given the losses of some suits, the limited nature of the maintenance, and the limit on how many are kept in orbit at a time, it isn’t scandalous that sometimes astronauts find themselves to be either too large or too small for the suits at hand.

That’s certainly a misremembering of what happened, yes

Thanks! Got to keep that old Bondi Blue going

• Shit on Teslas

I could do without a few of those

*rogue

Oh, I don’t think I did any more nagging than most fathers. You can tell when the kids start being more in to other things than hanging out with their parents, but you still miss it a little.

That seems like a reasonable reading and yet even so, I think the article pushes it. I was the primary care giver for my sons and I can’t imagine that even the “chattiest years” would have amounted to more than 5 or 6 years. Kids very quickly get involved in school, friends, etc., to the point that conversations subside. And by the time kids are older, it is difficult sometimes to get as much conversation from them as you’d like.

The researchers don’t know for sure why women are the more talkative gender during the near-40-year stretch between 25 and 64, but they say one possibility is that those tend to be the child rearing years, and women, who often assume the role of primary caregiver,

They really seem to be reaching on this one. I don’t think anyone, if asked to define child rearing years, would stretch those years out until 64. Also, 40 years is a significant percentage of average lifespans.

The whole article seems to be trying really hard to not come to the conclusion that most people would naively assume to be correct.

Villains or heroes isn’t the issue. It’s the argument that we need a group that doesn’t play by the rules that apply to the rest of society that I find problematic.

Shouldn’t we strive for a world in which the rules really do apply to all? Can’t we hope to conceive of a set of laws standards by which we should all be judged? Isn’t the world of Star Trek meant in some way to be aspirational, rather than just a reflection of what we have now?

Yeah. Reading the article, Section 31 seems great if you just want to just shit on everything else in the franchise. Nope, not for me.

Perl not included in list.

Conclusion: In Perl, everything works as expected

Let me explain the allegory and how it relates to the problem.

We can directly observe some things, like the shift in frequency of light or the output of accounting software. We can make inferences from these observations, like our models of the universe or our belief that the software indicates that money has been stolen. We can also step into discussions about what our inferences imply, like the existence of something that would explain what our models tell us or the existence of a thief.

In the allegory, the necessity of a thief is contingent upon our inferences about missing money. In physics, the necessity of dark energy is contingent upon the validity of our models and the assumptions drawn from them.

The claim that dark energy has to exist is just too strong of a claim, as it rests only upon inference. Even when you make, as you do, the weakest possible version of the claim, which is to say that dark energy is whatever makes sense of our inferences, it is still too strong a claim, unless you include “our inferences have been incorrect” as a possible outcome to the question of “what is dark energy?”

If researchers wish to question some of our inferences and doubt some of our assumptions, it’s a good thing. Claiming that dark energy must exist whenever researchers question it is not helpful.

EDIT changed matter -> energy

Hey, I was just trying to say that David Hume and likely a few others would have reservations about accepting your argument.

Perhaps an allegory would be useful.

Suppose I go about town telling everyone that there is a thief about. “A thief?”, everyone exclaims, “where, who?” And I tell them that I have not actually seen the thief, but I have taken to calling him Drake Emory, and I have evidence. Some of my money is missing, and that can’t happen without a cause. I call that cause Drake Emory. Seeing the wisdom of my words, the townsfolk agree that while Drake Emory is a strange name to call a thief, still he must exist because the money is gone. So, convinced of his existence, everyone searches high and low for Drake Emory. Some posit that Drake is a man who sneaks into houses at night. Others are certain that he is just a rat who chews bank notes to make his nest. There are many, many discussions about him. Only one thing is certain: Drake Emory must exist. How could he not? Something made that money disappear. Unfortunately, what the towns people don’t know, and I never even realize myself, is that no money ever went missing. In truth, I only came to that conclusion because I really don’t fully understand the accounting software that I’ve been using.

What is this, the cosmological argument, dark energy edition?