Or, another way to look at it - we have not (yet) found life on the handful of planets we've examined, out of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. That's like examining a few grains of sand, and drawing conclusions about all the sand on Earth (although those grains only account for a small fraction of the number of planets).

I would hardly call outright lies that these companies have told for decades "puffery".

So, they didn't mean "a red powder or cream used as a cosmetic for coloring the cheeks or lips."?

Such a simple typo diminishes the credibility of the article.

If it's based on tritium, they have to overcome the problem of a severe tritium shortage (something like 25 kg is all that exists).

Other than that, get back to us in 30 years.

How about we use paint balls to shoot people that come up with such dumbass ideas?

"spurious" is being kind.

> and which, he says, everyone agrees must end.

That's pretty much how everyone feels about their invasion of Ukraine.

On a related note, tax rates for the wealthy have been steadily going DOWN since the 50s. See https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/EX62u9bXsAUtRO8.mp4

Nah - it passed "fragile" long ago. "Impossible" is much more accurate.

>...alleged homophobic roots...

Yeah, no. See https://hmoluseyi.medium.com/was-nasas-historic-leader-james-webb-a-bigot-131c821d5f12

Ah, yes - typical of most headlines that ask a question - the answer is almost always "no".

Perhaps if companies were required to pay for ALL the consequences of their operations (e.g., oil and coal companies pay for cleaning up all the pollution they cause - otherwise known as externalities: "a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved"), they would be more likely to use their resources more wisely.

I only hope (perhaps foolishly) that someday, money won't be allow in politics.

>So no one’s goal is to hurt you. Because that doesn’t help them. They might hurt you to reach another goal, but you simply getting hurt isn’t it.

That's hard to believe, when considering how some "Christians" seem to revel in depriving human rights to anyone that isn't them.

If it's "new", then there was nothing to improve upon. If it's "improved", then it's not new, but a better (?) version of an already existing product.

I'd argue that science is addressing the scientific and technological problems, but is being stymied by science denial and willful ignorance. These problems need a political, not scientific, solution.

For starters, let's stop electing people that are ignorant, incompetent, and only interested in what they personally can get out of it.

...and the possibility that life might exist on some of them - life that might be so different from what we know, that it might be hard to recognize it as living.

> an ideology of tax cuts for the rich...

...which they justified by saying wealth would "trickle down" - which has been conclusively debunked.

The premise that "The vast majority of ... stars in the Milky Way haven't been directly detected" = "...there are nearer stars that remain undetected" is false. We have not directly detected most stars because most stars are either much, much, much farther away, or are obscured by closer objects/gas clouds/etc.

Another disadvantage is that converting electric power from wind or solar to heat, and then converting that stored heat back to electricity, is much less efficient than storing electricity in batteries.

>...hammer the hinges that look misaligned (even if they look slightly misaligned) back in place...

So, what's to prevent the hinges from returning to their misaligned orientation?

As much as I would love to see fusion become a reality, there are two problems that few engineers talk about:

First, when they talk about progress regarding getting to a break-even point (as much energy produced as the amount used to produce it), they usually only talk about the energy that goes into the laser (or other device used to initiate the fusion reaction). However, this is misleading, because it ignores all the other input energy required for the complete operation. So, when they claim the fusion energy produces was 70% of the input energy (which sounds very promising), the total input energy was actually much higher. In reality, they are getting out just a few percent of what they are putting in. See https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/10/how-close-is-nuclear-fusion-power.html

Second, tritium is needed for the fusion reaction, but the global supply of tritium is only about 25 kg. While it's true that some fusion reactions can produce more tritium, the supply is so low that they could have significant problems getting to the point where a continuous reaction can be sustained. See https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started#:~:text=Fusion%20reactors%20generally%20need%20a,%2C%20or%20tokamak%2C%20gets%20burned.