If viruses usually aren't considered alive, why would obelisk? I'm also curious how we know these are independent structures versus a by product of our own or our resident bacteria's cellular function. The mRNA seems unrelated to our own, but perhaps there's an unknown process that either generates new extracellular mRNA to create these protiens referenced in the article. Alternatively, could these be mRNA strands that escaped the cellular destruction process?
The analogy breaks down in that rate of infection of a disease is historical but very much informs ongoing public health measures that should be taken.
I don't see how you could say that's more likely without evidence, lack significant gaps in archaelogical finds between eras of human presence in a region.
You think the study of archeology, anthropology, genetics, and ecology across the entire Western academic system is being subverted to support DEI using a theory that existed long before the time "DEI" was a known acronym? And you can't provide evidence?
Out of Africa was fought by the majority of Western scientists during the early 20th century because of their pro-European biases. The reason its accepted is because the preponderance of evidence supports it.
I don't think a group of people living somewhere for thousands of years would be "getting it wrong." You're embedding an assumption that evolution has been working toward an end goal of getting humans to spread globally, which isn't how evolution works.
"Pressure" as a concept doesn't apply to black holes. They are the size they are because of their mass. The bigger the mass, the larger area where their gravity is so great light can't escape. Scientists model black holes as only have a mass and a spin on the inside because that's all the external universe cares about. Information being inscribed on the exterior is an artifact of tike dilating as an object approaches a black hole, iirc.
The robber barons are specifically examples of people considered not to be fulfilling their social responsibilities. The idea that business are only responsible to make money is the new concept, not that people were acting only to make money previously. It was seen as a bad thing, now its a deflection for bad behavior.
The Friedman Doctrine ( what you are espousing, that business are only set up to make money) is a relatively recent social construct, having been first articulated in 1970. Questioning whether or not it should be the basis of how we organize an economy is perfectly valid. Simply saying "this is the responsibility of Google" is missing the point. Cases like this should make us ask if this should be the way we assign responsibility to businesses or if we should assign them different responsibilities.
It's purposeful. It's green washing money - they are able to get good press by doing something pretty minor, like holding a conference. But that money ultimately came from causing far greater environmental harm.
I don't think the purpose of this sort of research is to be immediately applicable, it more shows a direction that could be useful in the future. Shor's algorithm has not been used practically, but it's hard to imagine modern cryptography without "post quantum" being an important topic.
The stated reasons is patriotism. The real reason is that the military buys a lot of airline tickets and the military member gets to choose from a list of flights from a variety of airlines.
There have been a ton of attacks originating from Russia against Ukraine and Estonia very publicly. Read Sandworm for a deep dive. Just because some hackers are lazy and use a Cyrillic keyboard as a lazy man's geofencing does not mean these countries are off limits.
I'm pretty sure Russian hackers target former USSR countries. Estonia and Ukraine come to mind, but I would imagine all of the Baltic states, Georgia, and Moldova would be ok as well.
This is such a weird take. The existence of bitcoin mining increases electric demand. There's no inherent reason that without it demand would spike above what it already is without, outside of the price of energy, which it sounds like wasn't really a factor here. (Because the market is clearly being inefficient when a supplier is paying someone not to buy their product.)