I don't see how this is random-chance; random-anything; anything-chance - we can't design anything like this... we don't even know how it works!
I wonder if I create my own magic number, would I see it everywhere?
I pick 23.
ABC clip goes on to conclude these 3 testimonies are real. i don't know if they are, but that's what Media Watch found.
in about 2 minutes for slam-dunk.
Barry (host) likes to hook you and let you take some line before reeling you in.
a different history of 9/11 from a Club of Rome elite.
sceptical of WTC 7.
... but he isn't good with science nor engineering...
Global Truths with Dr Keith Suter: https://www.podcastoneaustralia.com.au/podcasts/Global-Truths
i saw this last night on Pathe news
farmer damages an electricity pylon 1957
208 days later, i've not noticed my magic number. but i see 33 often.
Lewis is doing his part, but there just isn't enough diversity in Formula One.
99.9% recycled material and fasteners.
0.1% leftover new screws.
So... you want Australian SARS2.0 numbers... how about these numbers?
@darrenoneill I expect your next art to be the most edgyboi thing on the internet. I want to see a pepe wearing a turban holding the severed head of biden (kathy griffen style) standing in from of the twin towers with the FBI planting TNT around them.
so you like a good dystopian story:
powerful people and organizations manipulating and controlling populations;
forcing compliance under threats of violence and exclusion;
governments turning police into machines;
freedoms lost - slaves to a system once supported...
and yet! you haven't read Revelation even once!?
you have worked hard.
you have considered all risks.
you have secured that industrial control system:
you have addressed known vulnerabilities.
you have disabled unwanted services and programs.
you have authenticated all users and machines.
you have encrypted all data on network and on disk.
you have blocked unauthorized media.
now, you can put it on my internet...
... what do you mean by 'NO'?
isn't it secure?
Whereas Richard Feynman could say that “science is the culture of doubt”, in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors.
1984... just running a bit late.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!