You are incorrect. The rabies vaccine is the most effective prophylaxis against rabies. The post exposure protocol involves injecting immunoglobulin into the area around the wound, to bind to rabies virus in the vicinity of the wound, as well as administering the rabies vaccine (which is itself a protocol of multiple shots spaced out in time). It is the immunoglobulin which is the delaying treatment intended to give you more time for your immune system to develop its own antibodies against rabies virus after being stimulated by the vaccine.

We did evolve smaller eyes when we transitioned to being diurnal hunters.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248406002053

One thing you may be missing which is probably relevant here is that, all other things being equal, a smaller eyeball means a larger depth of field. That is, more of the visual field measured along the axis of sight will be in approximate focus the smaller the eyeball. This might sound like a desirable property, and in some cases it is. But it reduces your ability to determine target distance through adjusting the optical properties of the eye, for example by flexing the lens or adjusting the pupil diameter. When you focus on something in the nearfield or midfield, with a smaller depth of field you get more information about the relative position of a target and its visual background than you do with a larger depth of field. In the case of a pinhole aperture which has, in theory, unlimited depth of field, you get no information at all about the distance to any of the objects in the scene based on their relative sharpness because everything has the same sharpness.

For diurnal raptors, for example, a large depth of field isn't much of a disadvantage because they're trying to acquire relatively small targets which are relatively far away and are pretty much always just about the same distance away as their visual background. If you're looking at a rabbit from above you don't need to have optical information to know that the rabbit is just about as far away as the ground. On the other hand, if you are a diurnal ape operating along the surface of the Earth looking at the horizon, and your typical hunting targets are at most single to double-digit meters away when you begin your attack, and which is often hunting targets with complicated backgrounds at different distances away, it's pretty important to have the ability to distinguish how far away your target is in an absolute sense, as well as how far it is from its background. A larger eyeball, which, all other things being equal, gives you a smaller depth of field, helps in that aspect.

In general, our brain does quite sophisticated visual processing on the information it receives from our eyeballs. [In fact, the image processing is so sophisticated that it allows us to surpass the physics of our eyes in some sense under certain conditions.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacuity_(scientific_term)) Obviously we are not actually breaking physics with our eyes, but taking advantage of the fact that we have a matrix of receptors and combining the signal from more than just one to provide information at a finer resolution than would be possible if one simply naively took the intensity values recorded by each receptor and displayed them without processing. One could argue that perhaps shrinking the eyeball would free up some space in the cranium for more brain, but in order to maintain the same visual abilities one would probably need to devote more of the brain to visual processing.

>(Also makes it a more pleasant experience for when you do decide to drive, since there'll be way less cars on the streets and therefore you won't get stuck in traffic anywhere near as often.)

Not going to happen. The corollary to induced demand (add new road space and people will switch modes from something else to driving until the total travel time is about the same as before you added road space) is that the same thing happens in reverse. If some people switch modes away from cars for whatever reason and that brings travel times down again, other people will switch back to cars. Make driving more pleasant -- > more people drive until everybody's just as miserable as they were before. This is the natural behavior of people minimizing commuting cost in a comprehensive sense.

The vast majority of road maintenance costs are incurred by trucking, which is used to transport your goods regardless of whether you drive a car or ride a bike. A single truck passage is equivalent in terms of road damage to about 10,000 cars.

The same is true of this earthquake warning system. In fact the article specifically mentions the Apple version.

>I completely agree with you except the last statement. P(R|A) given the same principle of more information that you just said assumes that "all the information" we have is that someone at some time won two lotteries twice. As in, if you knew that someone won two lotteries at some point or another, then yes, P (R|A) would suffice. > >But in this case, we know that Juliet won. Hence, we calculate P (R|J), even if we don't know anything else about Juliet

Why? Why do we do that when as far as we know Juliet is no different from anyone else? There is no more reason to assume the lottery is rigged because a particular individual whose name you know won twice in a row if you know nothing at all about that individual. If you don't know them from Adam, then Juliet could just as easily have been Adam or Bobby or Charles or Doug. Knowing literally nothing other than her name is the same as knowing nothing at all about her, unless the lottery is rigged for anyone named Juliet and you know that.

This is grossly implausible for sonar for a variety of reasons, including (but almost certainly not limited to):

• potentially very substantial added complexity to receiving microphones in order to extract spectral information from a sonar return (depending on spectrum used)
• the extremely low bandwidth available from sonar pulses from emitters a practical distance away (at least tens to hundreds of kilometers if not more) because of the attenuation of higher frequency sound in water
• the high frequency dependence of attenuation and dispersal of sound in water
• the extremely challenging noise environment at usable frequencies

No, it's actually a vaccine. Plants have immune systems that are in some way analogous to ours, although because they have much different biology the details are not the same.

However, in this case the vaccine works like a vaccine would in a human: a non-virulent strain of a potential pathogen (here a fungus) is injected into the tree, causing the tree to develop an immune response to the similar-enough pathogenic fungus, which allows the tree to resist infection from that fungus.