To know how f*cked that company is, you just have to look at the language: transition, empower, working diligently, compelling experience, leverage our core strengths... Nobody talks like that except in overwritten press releases that are headed straight for the recycle bin. If you want to be trusted, start by talking…

Good question. Current research is suggesting that the answer is "a whole lot". Not only do the gut microbes affect how you digest, they have an even more profound such as mediating the hormonal signals that your gut uses to tell your brain that it's full. One corollating factor: people who have had a lot of…

Apparently the Russians didn't learn much about asymmetric warfare from their experience in Afghanistan. Fighters there used a similar tactic, except instead of firing down from rooftops, they fired down from the sides of steep canyons. And as here, the Soviet tanks couldn't elevate their guns sufficiently to return…

Social Fixer (previously known as Better Facebook, I think) has this option. It's worth the price of entry alone. And by the way, it's free.

Let's leave Carl Sagan with the last word on cooking-from-scratch oneupmanship: "First, create a universe..."

Which version doesn't have a clearly defined size? I'm not much of a fan of Trek, but one thing I recall is that the ship in First Contact doesn't even have a consistent number of levels!

One of the characteristics of the complex partial seizure is "automatism", i.e. that the sufferer appears to be behaving near-normally — yes, even conversing and driving — while in reality the body is on automatic pilot. The sufferer did not "choose" to drive off; he was, quite literally, unconscious.

Um, a seizure *is* mental, not physical — in the sense that it's primarily a (physical) effect in the brain rather than the body. Perhaps you are confusing "seizure" with the physical symptom of "convulsion", which is often a the consequence of the Grand Mal seizure beloved of TV shows?

There's a type of seizure called a Complex Partial Seizure that's exactly like this: person seems OK or at most a little spacy, but they are moving automatically, maybe talking, even driving; but the person is actually unconscious and later has no recollection of what happened — the medical term is automatism. (There…

Yep. In particular, there's a type called a Complex Partial Seizure that's exactly like this: person seems OK or at most a little spacy, moving automatically, even driving; but is actually unconscious and later has no recollection of what happened. And complex partial seizure can start at around his age with no prior…

...except that as far as we know, it isn't possible — at least, not here and now. Everywhere/when in spacetime is either part of a time travel region that contains time loops, or it isn't — and if it isn't, it never will be. Since we haven't been visited by time travelers, it's a fair bet that our region of spacetime…

Actually... no. Physicists often noodle about physically plausible mechanisms for time travel, and bizarrely, one thing they all have in common (so far) is that you can't travel back before the creation of the time machine. So it's still perfectly possible that a time machine will be created in the future and there's…

I "discovered" the same idea when I had a big pile of key limes to juice for key lime pie. Works great.

THIS.

I'll be interested to see the followup to this, if anybody looks into previous stories printed by this newspaper. In my (fairly limited) experience, I've never seen a plagiarist who was not a serial plagiarist. It doesn't seem to be something that people do in a moment of weakness, but rather something they do because…

If that's what you're saying, I agree. The video is in way too much of a hurry and consequently rushes through the essential definitional part, i.e. what on earth does it mean to compare the sizes of infinite sets?

If, as you say, the video describes the rationals as uncountable, then that is a *horrible* blunder in the video and I owe you an apology. However, I didn't see any point in the video where they say or imply that the rationals are uncountable? In fact, the cardinality of the rationals is the same as the cardinality of…

Blade, it may seem "just plain false" to you, but actually it's true. There are exactly as many rational numbers i.e. x/y, which can be written as pairs (x, y), as there are integers. The proof is very straightforward, but unfortunately not well-suited to presenting in an ASCII comment. And from there, it follows for…

Um, what? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your flat earther argument is basically that "People believed something wrong in the past, therefore I should believe something wrong now"? How does that help your case? (And by the way, it's a myth that people believed that the world was flat "back then".)

Yes it is. And that's the version I use when I teach it.