Or maybe they are perfectly aware of your (obvious) objection and "theory of everything" is just being used in a metaphorical, restricted sense.

Nice article. The one scruple I'd raise is the idea that gravitation was known to be incomplete because Newton "couldn't explain how it worked". That's a confusion about the nature of explanation. Explain how it works... in terms of what prior concepts? Billiard balls? There's no such thing as "explaining how…

I don't recall it ever setting my mouth on fire... my sinuses and brain, yeah.

Gravitational lensing was observed in the 70s.

Awful. Why would anybody above five years old find this entertaining?

RIP Wrath_of_Quan

What if unfunny articles were unfunny articles?

My money would be on Archimedes. In fact, the first question that came to mind for me was, "who was Archimedes and how much of that crazy shit did he actually do"? The way the invading Romans talked about him, it makes it sound like he was some kind of notorious superweapon of a genius holed up inside Syracuse.

Where did you get that idea? You say "conflict" as if one group is asserting that quantum physics and not general relativity is correct, and another group is asserting that general relativity and not quantum physics is correct. That's not the situation at all. All physicists are perfectly aware that both are excellent…

You have disastrously failed to engage with what my comment actually said.

That would be my guess at the moment, too, but we need to prove 3 is the minimum, and that's tricky.

Can you explain the process in your solution in a bit more detail? I don't follow.

Are you sure you know what trigonometry is..?

Blackface never meant “having a black face”, anyway. It means, “performing a gross racial caricature of black people”. Is she doing that? No. Is there any indication whatsoever that this was some kind of racist caricature? No. The manufactured outrage is fucking inane. Furthermore, getting het up about irrelevant shit…

I think you mean, "chokes on a lightly broiled, ponderous porkchop, seasoned with chives and cloves, and swimming in a rich, creamy lake of cheese sauce, accompanied by a host of crisp, lightly buttered new potatoes, and washed down with a flagon of a deliciously stout ale".

The annoying thing is that he doesn't seem to understand that he's doing it. In this very article he says he "regrets not ploughing ahead into Winds in 2011". And now he's working on a new TV show? Just... wat.

That's what I thought. Just because we can tell that some of these stimuli — multiple eyes, rectangular eyes, inverted eyes, et. al. — are fake, doesn't mean it's not triggering the evolved, genetic neural revulsions to eye-shapes in the birds.

The explanation is kind of botched at the end there. The predators did respond to single eyes. They responded to anything that looked remotely like an eye, including reversed colours and odd shapes. Larger and more numerous eyes made them even more averse. I think it's possible that their aversion is rooted in their…

The moon never looks like that first one in England, so that can't have been what the monks were trying to describe. I interpreted them as referring to the top horn; the body of the moon is below the top horn. That makes sense.

Yeah, the level of clickbait made me facepalm.