Seems dwarfed by the 35000+ items at the Bunny Museum in Southern California. They only recently moved into larger space and I remember when they operated out of a house by appointment only.
I am not actually suggesting to import test subjects for research, but hinting at the idea that morality seems to be rarely based on strict risk reduction (even ignoring the issue of people being bad at evaluating risk). This seems to apply even when dealing with those that don't/can't give consent. It will reduce to absurd results and disagree with how society wants to handle children and parenting.
This gets more into difference between ethics and morality, as it would seem easier to argue such a project is unethical (especially if considering failure rates of human space flight is probably worse than 0.4%). Even then, from what I remember of the debate around the last revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, things can be less than straightforward. This is how you get differences between things like that Declaration of Helsinki and CIOMS guidelines, and discussion of whether things have swung too far, e.g. whether we should avoid risks of exploitation to the point of increasing medical risks.
There are 100ish countries with infant mortality rates* more than double the number you cited, a mother from those places would be lowering their risk then...although to be fair the same effort could reduce many such people's risks even more so without the space launch.
(* glossing over infant mortality assumes live birth but is easier to look up)
Then following science and/or philosophical skepticism, there are no facts anywhere and everything is speculation of varying certainty. But many of us don't like having useless words, so instead of reserving "fact" to mean something unattainable, we just use it for something above some debatable threshold in certainty.
Funny enough, one of the families I know well and have seen problems with 5 out of 5 children being on welfare at some point as adults (and most having drug problems at one point), had parents with rather strict rules of money for chores and virtually no free gifts. E.g. "big" gifts were of the form, "You now have the privilege of joining us for this weekend activity, but you still have to pay for yourself." But I guess that is the nature of anecdotal experiences.
I honestly haven't seen any data on how chore & allowance structure affects chances of welfare usage and debt one way or another. Although I have seen other work that shows that there is a strong correlation between those outcomes and answers to questions like, "In an emergency, do you know anyone that can loan you $100?"
The article says it generates an electric field, which is quite different from a magnetic field. It would be easy to generate a static magnetic field from just permanent magnets (something more often in the realm of quack medicine though...). A lot of biochemistry and cell mechanics depend on electric fields, whereas use of magnetism in biology is a lot rarer.
There is a parallel argument about the effects of paying kids for good grades. This seems rather effective at raising grades and test scores, but does doing so affect kid's life long ability to learn things once they are too old to get money for doing so? Researchers, educators, and psychologist seem to argue both for and against such a method. However hard data is difficult to come by and emotions run high (finding a place to study this is often difficult due to backlash).
I am a few years out of date on such work, at the least, but there has been some research that show making kids do something, regardless of the reward, causes some amount of habit to stick. What is the most effective way is still an open question, but it seems trying to encourage a kids good habits one way or another is still better than nothing.
I actually rather dislike a lot of the coverage of things like "supermoon" and now "wolf moon" are getting. I've bumped into a few too many people, especially when doing science outreach work in the past, that had amateur astronomy ruined for them by unrealistic expectations. It is hard to say how many of them would have cared otherwise, but often the result is blaming the hobby or field and not the clickbait stories themselves.
China's space program borrows heavily, both from sharing and from reverse engineering, from the Soviet space program. Their designs and equipment tend to derive much more so from Soviet designs and not resemble American designs. Collaboration between NASA and Chinese researchers has been mostly prohibited by the US for nearly ten years now (collaborations in other fields have been fruitful for both sides though...). They have been quite capable of their own developments for a long time now too, although some of the old Soviet designs work well and don't need to be changed much to be modernized.
There are plenty of cases of China playing loose (or breaking) IP laws and relying on modified American designs and technologies. This is probably a situation quite far from that though.
Most people do not have to buy anything online. You could use one of the search engines that specialize in not retaining search histories and have existed for years now. If you don't trust them, there are tools that will make tracking you online much harder (near impossible if you don't give out easy to identify info). Nearly everything is still functional with these tools in use, just slightly less convenient.
People do give away a lot of information freely, but that info is a bit narrow. A lot more, broader info comes from tracking people based on what they do and not what they say, like through advertisements that can track your browsing habits. Either way, people don't care and some research has already shown it is not just a lack of understanding.
At least diesel is fungible (not so much the effort of moving it around).
I had two different license servers refuse to recognize dates after 1999, and the companies said it was only fixed with a paid upgrade. So in a sense I lost a couple hundred dollars as a teenager buying new software from a competitor (no sense rewarding their bugs)
This is kind of the life cycle of many of the more exotic fusion research devices. They get built primarily to try out new fusion relevant ideas, but then on the side get used for astrophysical plasma and basic plasma research. Sometimes a machine that cannot get funding for fusion research will get a small fraction of its original funding to keep going with one of these other topics, which ends up being a better deal than selling the machine for parts and scrap.
Something that helps is that many plasma dynamics come down to "dimensionless quantities" that don't depend on a particular size or timescale. As long as relevant quantities are scaled appropriately, you can find analogies in systems that vary by many orders of magnitude in size, speed, temperature, density, etc. Here an experiment that lasts nanoseconds to microseconds is analogous to something that takes seconds to hours to happen on a larger scale. A project I once worked on proposed something similar, but with plasma that was milliseconds long instead. Each scale comes with different pros and cons when it comes to making measurements.
This is not easy, as your "3 things" are actually many things conflated together, and some of the premises you state are just incorrect. I think it is unreasonable to expect random strangers to write paragraphs to address each point, especially when it looks like you haven't tried very hard to look for answers yourself. That said, I'm waiting some stuff to cure...
1.) Evolution is a natural process that happens with no goal, so what does it mean to "work well?" Is gravity failing to work well when a balloon or airplane goes up?
And why would you not expect some things to go extinct when the environment keeps changing? The composition of the atmosphere, biomes, climate all keep changing, so why would you expect species to not disappear?
2.) You should learn about the concept of local minima/maxima. All sorts of processes are really good at optimizing a situation analogous to climbing uphill to find the highest point. But walking uphill doesn't mean you find the tallest peak, only the nearest one.
For a lot of animals, being slightly smarter at the cost of needing more food or more parenting or fewer offspring is detrimental, making it harder for them to reproduce. They found their little peak, and changing would mean going downhill, even if there is a larger peak in the distance. Changes would need to either be a very drastic jump to another peak (which happens, but rarely) or wait until the topology (e.g. environment) changes. Which peak they climb is also completely up to chance too, so it is possible for a lot of time to pass without a certain adaptation appearing.
That said, there is no highest peak or levels to evolution. There is no absolutely best evolved creature as if it were a title to be won. Despite the lazy analogy of hill climbing given above, evolution should not be thought of as a upward movement with everything moving in a unified direction.
Either a creature is good enough to reproduce in its niche or not. Humans can survive in many environments quite well, but there are many situations that could kill humans without killing things like plants or bacteria.
3.) Doesn't this contradict your #1? Are animals supposed to change or not in your view? You've both complained that animals don't change (crocodiles) and that they do (the ones that disappeared). Some niches change or disappear faster than others, while others have not changed for a long time.
Also, evolution is still on going. There is no evidence that anything is different about the basic process now from 1 million years ago.
You say people refuse to think about these things, but in one way or another a lot has been written on such topics, by people with far better writing and more time than anyone here has. If your opinion is that people haven't addressed such things before, than either you haven't looked at what is already out there, or are choosing to ignore it.
Maybe you should try picking a narrow, specific topic and read more about that? For example, maybe read about the fossil record of crocodiles. You asked why crocodiles haven't changed since the dinosaurs, when they have definitely changed:
Three large groups of crocodylomorphs survived pass the end of the dinosaurs: the dyrosauridae, the sebecosuchia and the eusuchia. The dyrosauridae seem to be very aquatic, and they mostly disappeared at the end of the Paleocene when there was a drastic, sudden change in temperature and ocean circulation. Some branches of dyrosauridae survived until the end of the Eocene when there was a change in temperature in the opposite direction, so they completely disappeared 35ish million years ago. The sebecosuchia were terrestrial and survived until about 11 million years ago when temperatures were dropping. The eusuchia are the group modern crocodiles and alligators belong to, but that group wasn't unchanging that whole time: nostril and skull shapes changed to be better adapted to lurking in water, skeleton and muscles changed to be more about strength than mobility. There is still a long chain of spieces and changes, even if more subtle than what mammals were doing at the same time, connecting Jurassic crocodylomorphs to modern crocodiles and alligators.
The proportion of female elephants without tusks has doubled to tripled, depending on location. Some species of fish now reach sexual maturity at younger ages and/or smaller sizes. So some animals are changing in response to human hunting.
The process is built on a large amount of randomness though, so it still comes down to luck. The faster the environment changes, the fewer attempts there are for new genes to appear. Even then, if an amazing gene appeared that would protect a species from hunters/poachers, the animals might be screwed if population has dwindled too much anyway, or if there are other compounding problems.
This gets more into difference between ethics and morality, as it would seem easier to argue such a project is unethical (especially if considering failure rates of human space flight is probably worse than 0.4%). Even then, from what I remember of the debate around the last revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, things can be less than straightforward. This is how you get differences between things like that Declaration of Helsinki and CIOMS guidelines, and discussion of whether things have swung too far, e.g. whether we should avoid risks of exploitation to the point of increasing medical risks.
(* glossing over infant mortality assumes live birth but is easier to look up)
I honestly haven't seen any data on how chore & allowance structure affects chances of welfare usage and debt one way or another. Although I have seen other work that shows that there is a strong correlation between those outcomes and answers to questions like, "In an emergency, do you know anyone that can loan you $100?"
I am a few years out of date on such work, at the least, but there has been some research that show making kids do something, regardless of the reward, causes some amount of habit to stick. What is the most effective way is still an open question, but it seems trying to encourage a kids good habits one way or another is still better than nothing.
There are plenty of cases of China playing loose (or breaking) IP laws and relying on modified American designs and technologies. This is probably a situation quite far from that though.
People do give away a lot of information freely, but that info is a bit narrow. A lot more, broader info comes from tracking people based on what they do and not what they say, like through advertisements that can track your browsing habits. Either way, people don't care and some research has already shown it is not just a lack of understanding.
I had two different license servers refuse to recognize dates after 1999, and the companies said it was only fixed with a paid upgrade. So in a sense I lost a couple hundred dollars as a teenager buying new software from a competitor (no sense rewarding their bugs)
Something that helps is that many plasma dynamics come down to "dimensionless quantities" that don't depend on a particular size or timescale. As long as relevant quantities are scaled appropriately, you can find analogies in systems that vary by many orders of magnitude in size, speed, temperature, density, etc. Here an experiment that lasts nanoseconds to microseconds is analogous to something that takes seconds to hours to happen on a larger scale. A project I once worked on proposed something similar, but with plasma that was milliseconds long instead. Each scale comes with different pros and cons when it comes to making measurements.
1.) Evolution is a natural process that happens with no goal, so what does it mean to "work well?" Is gravity failing to work well when a balloon or airplane goes up?
And why would you not expect some things to go extinct when the environment keeps changing? The composition of the atmosphere, biomes, climate all keep changing, so why would you expect species to not disappear?
2.) You should learn about the concept of local minima/maxima. All sorts of processes are really good at optimizing a situation analogous to climbing uphill to find the highest point. But walking uphill doesn't mean you find the tallest peak, only the nearest one.
For a lot of animals, being slightly smarter at the cost of needing more food or more parenting or fewer offspring is detrimental, making it harder for them to reproduce. They found their little peak, and changing would mean going downhill, even if there is a larger peak in the distance. Changes would need to either be a very drastic jump to another peak (which happens, but rarely) or wait until the topology (e.g. environment) changes. Which peak they climb is also completely up to chance too, so it is possible for a lot of time to pass without a certain adaptation appearing.
That said, there is no highest peak or levels to evolution. There is no absolutely best evolved creature as if it were a title to be won. Despite the lazy analogy of hill climbing given above, evolution should not be thought of as a upward movement with everything moving in a unified direction.
Either a creature is good enough to reproduce in its niche or not. Humans can survive in many environments quite well, but there are many situations that could kill humans without killing things like plants or bacteria.
3.) Doesn't this contradict your #1? Are animals supposed to change or not in your view? You've both complained that animals don't change (crocodiles) and that they do (the ones that disappeared). Some niches change or disappear faster than others, while others have not changed for a long time.
Also, evolution is still on going. There is no evidence that anything is different about the basic process now from 1 million years ago.
You say people refuse to think about these things, but in one way or another a lot has been written on such topics, by people with far better writing and more time than anyone here has. If your opinion is that people haven't addressed such things before, than either you haven't looked at what is already out there, or are choosing to ignore it.
Maybe you should try picking a narrow, specific topic and read more about that? For example, maybe read about the fossil record of crocodiles. You asked why crocodiles haven't changed since the dinosaurs, when they have definitely changed:
Three large groups of crocodylomorphs survived pass the end of the dinosaurs: the dyrosauridae, the sebecosuchia and the eusuchia. The dyrosauridae seem to be very aquatic, and they mostly disappeared at the end of the Paleocene when there was a drastic, sudden change in temperature and ocean circulation. Some branches of dyrosauridae survived until the end of the Eocene when there was a change in temperature in the opposite direction, so they completely disappeared 35ish million years ago. The sebecosuchia were terrestrial and survived until about 11 million years ago when temperatures were dropping. The eusuchia are the group modern crocodiles and alligators belong to, but that group wasn't unchanging that whole time: nostril and skull shapes changed to be better adapted to lurking in water, skeleton and muscles changed to be more about strength than mobility. There is still a long chain of spieces and changes, even if more subtle than what mammals were doing at the same time, connecting Jurassic crocodylomorphs to modern crocodiles and alligators.
The process is built on a large amount of randomness though, so it still comes down to luck. The faster the environment changes, the fewer attempts there are for new genes to appear. Even then, if an amazing gene appeared that would protect a species from hunters/poachers, the animals might be screwed if population has dwindled too much anyway, or if there are other compounding problems.