>Let's be honest, credit is a scam.

A credit score is a product that is sold to lending institutions, not to the OP. Therefore, the OP is not being scammed by the mere existence of their credit score. You could hypothetically be attempting to paint banks as victims of this scam, but they’re informed consumers who know what they’re buying, so that seems overly generous to me.

>I would not have thought that. Coming from a mountain and road biker who very often bikes above 20 mph, but very often bikes much slower than that as well.

Downhill skiing (as opposed to cross country skiing) is done going only downhill. So the speeds will tend to be higher than an average for cycling that includes flat and uphill regions.

I’m a casual skier, and I know I’ve hit 50 mph for short stretches. It’s very easy to pick up a lot of speed under the right circumstances. In contrast, when I cycle it’s on flat ground at a pace that evidently is slower than Google maps expects, so presumably quite a lot slower than my skiing speed.

Not in the study is wasn’t.

Did you just make your numbers up?

Then why was a difference observed in the study??

All you have to do is allow more than one photon and it’s trivial to produce a complex waveform. Radio waves that actually arrive at an antennae in real world applications consist of more than 1 photon, so I don’t understand why you’re so attached to this idea that it has to be all packed into just one photon.

Sound waves are not carried by particles, so I don’t see why you’re insisting on this single photon restriction.

I understand what harmonics are. I couldn’t figure out what point you were making.

But the original question was about radio waves, which are not visible light.

So I still don’t understand why you’re making the argument that it’s impossible to have a photon at one frequency and then another photon at 2x that frequency, just because they wouldn’t both be in the range our eyes can see.

>No. I don't think photons interact that way, creating the harmonics that distinguish a flute tone from an oboe.

What does this mean? The sound that we hear from an oboe or a flute consists of multiple frequencies added together.

You can certainly produce multiple frequencies of light and have them all arrive at your receiver - say the human eye - together. For example, light from a fluorescent light bulb and light from the sun.

>So can we form complex wave form light?

Depends what you mean by complex. Evanescent waves have an imaginary number in their propagation constant. So if by complex you mean includes complex numbers, then certainly it’s possible with light.

If by complex the OP simply means complicated, then I would argue that sunlight is already quite complicated. Unpolarized monochromatic light can be modeled as a sine wave with a slowly varying phase, which in Fourier space provides a small bandwidth around the central frequency which is very similar to FM radio, but of course the fluctuations are random so we couldn’t dig out some sort of audio signal from it.

No, an amorphous solid is not a liquid.

A liquid is: “a nearly incompressible fluid that conforms to the shape of its container but retains a (nearly) constant volume independent of pressure” (from Wikipedia).

An amorphous solid does not flow to conform to the shape of it’s container. Thus, and amorphous solid is not a liquid.

Further, many solids are non crystalline. Wood for example. Also charcoal. Also paper.

Are you seriously planning to argue that paper is a liquid?

>This is partly due to their metabolic rate, which is much lower in cold temperatures than it is in higher temperatures.

Are you sure this is accurate?

A lower metabolic rate would mean that the animal is generating less heat. Which presumably would confer lower cold tolerance than a high metabolic rate.

Hibernating animals do have a lower metabolic rate. But they compensate with more insulating fur, and by selecting sheltered places to hibernate. The lowered metabolism doesn’t help avoid frostbite.

You haven’t answered the OP’s question at all.

> Then consider that flight alone was thought of as impossible less than 150 years ago.

No, flight was not thought of as impossible 150 years ago. It was very obviously possible, because birds, insects, and bats all fly. People knew that flight was possible.

150 years ago, we didn’t know how to build a machine that could carry humans into the air. We simply didn’t yet know how to engineer the solution - doesn’t mean we thought it was impossible.

The US housing market is a heterogeneous data set for which a single statistic is a completely inadequate metric. At a minimum you need to include acknowledgment that 50% of homes sold for less than the median. But really you need to break it down by region and look at both median and standard deviation within each region.

Put another way, median is not synonymous with floor.

Great suggestion!

OP (or anyone else reading) can do something similar in the future too. If planning to moving into more expensive housing, spend a while putting the difference between current and prospective payment into savings, to see what the new budget will be like.

This also has the huge upside of ensuring that you have a lot of savings when you do move.

That’s not what statistical significance means at all.

Something can be statistically significant and just be a correlation.

4500 people is plenty to establish statistical significance. They could’ve had far fewer people and still established statistical significance.

There are fictitious forces in non-inertial reference frames: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

It’s easier to think about a rotating reference frame for this. You could observe a centripetal force or the Coriolis force.

We’re all grateful that you were willing to show up and demonstrate that some people are just flawed.

What does your comment have to do with the study at all??

Neither the federal government nor the FDA make money from prescriptions. Pharmaceutical companies do.

“Capital restricts me, currently” So you too are desperate to make money from it?

So you don’t understand the study…and yet you agree completely with its findings?

“Growing organs from stem cells is strictly prohibited in the majority of countries to avoid misuse of technology”

No it isn’t. Where did you get this idea?

When I tried to find info about this, what I found are a number of sites that are quite excited that we might one day be able to grow organs to help people. That’s a pretty far cry from being banned.

Just stop eating tomatoes due to their sugar??

When you get to this level of obsession with sugar and carbs, you’ve left reality far, far behind.

You think they keep cell phone towers in the lab, next to the bees!?

Tons of things have been developed in the last 50 years. Video games. Brexit. QAnon. How do you know cell phone towers are the cause of anything in particular.

Rockets have been legal for a while, and they’re still quite risky.

When talking about a complex system we don’t fully understand - that is, the human body - the belief that if only we tweaked the incentives of pharmaceutical companies a teeny bit then we’d have side effect free drugs is ludicrous.