Ah yes, to "entertain an idea".

Good add.

Depends on the context.

It could mean amusing them - like how you have to play with a child to keep them entertained rather than just talk to them or hang out.

It could also mean having someone in your home, though that is more archaic usage. Entertaining used to mean hosting dinner parties and the like.

Exactly. I did the math on this in another post and under ideal conditions, solar panels on a car would - over the course of an entire day - produce the same amount of charge as two minutes on a conventional charging station. Under normal conditions, that would be closer to one minute.

They just don't produce enough charge to make it worthwhile.

> Is earth gravity different in Death Valley vs top of Everest ?

Technically yes - gravitational force does decrease the further you get from the Earth.

However, the distance in question reduces the force by such a minuscule amount that it doesn't matter outside of science or engineering. You have to get very far away to notice - even the ISS, about 250 miles above the surface of the Earth, still experiences about 90% of Earth's gravitational pull.

From the calculations I was able to find, the difference in weight from sea level to the summit of Everest is about 0.4% - and that is about as extreme as you can get and still technically be "on Earth". For most practical purposes, you can treat the force as constant.

Edit: Just to expand on this, the highest city in the world is El Alto, Bolivia, at about 13k feet - half the height of Everest. A 50k lb shipping container would only weigh about 100lbs less if taken from sea level to El Alto - and that isn't a meaningful difference.

No. Blood cells are individual cells and not part of a structural form or functional unit.

Solar altitude: the angle of the sun relative to the Earth's horizon, measured in degrees. This changes over the course of the year, with altitude at its highest in the summer and lowest in the winter.

Once you are capable of measuring solar altitude (which isn't that difficult) you can track it every day. If you do that, you'll quickly realize that it changes on a predictable ~365-day loop.

Because the measurement of force on an object of a particular mass due to gravity is effectively identical everywhere on planet Earth. For the general purposes of needing to know weight, fluctuations in the force applied by gravity aren't even rounding errors - they are too minuscule to matter.

Given that that force is effectively a constant in Earth-gravity, we can convert between mass and force on Earth.

In biology, an organ is defined as a collection of tissues that structurally form a functional unit specialized to perform a particular function.

Skin meets this definition quite nicely. It is a collection of tissues that form a very discernable structure and fulfill the purpose of providing a protective barrier for our internal organs.

It isn't something that anyone can comprehend. Nothing is not a concept that we are capable of understanding.

We don't really know how nothing interacts with the universe, as we are unable to observe this occurring (if it occurs at all).

>I'm just assuming that I'm correct in that there is an expanding ring of light

Its not just light. Its everything - light, matter, space, time. Everything was created in the Big Bang.

>then what possibly can be outside that ring?

That is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Nothing - in the truest sense of that word - because everything in existence was created in the Big Bang (as far as we know). There isn't even space for the nothing to exist in - space is part of the Big Bang too.

>So if there is not light even, does that mean outside the ring there is no time?

Correct - no space, no time, nothing.

They don't know exactly, but since every package will contain roughly the same amount of food (either by weight or by quantity) and since they know the ingredients that go into the product (which do have caloric values) they can get close enough. The FDA doesn't require exact labeling for this reason.

No, its another person just like you (or a fund, but I digress). It is rarely the company itself buying the stock (though buybacks do happen, but I digress again).

The number of buyers is always equal to the number of sellers - that is what the stock price actually is (the price at which buyers = sellers). The price is constantly adjusting to keep that statement true.

So, for example, if you want to sell stock at $100/share, maybe no one wants to buy it for that - they only want to buy at $80/share. Someone else, who really wants to sell will offer $90/share and someone else who really wants to buy will do that. The stock price is now $90. You still have your share at $100 and the guy wanting to pay $80 still doesn't have his, but since the number of people willing to sell at $90 = the number of people willing to buy at $90, that is where the price evens out.

We can observe what is beyond the edge of our galaxy. Our telescopes - like the Hubble and Webb - are powerful enough to capture the light of distant galaxies and from that we can see that they are made up of stars just like our own. The Ultra Deep Field is one of the most awe inspring photographs ever taken - each dot of light another galaxy out there like ours.

Too far beyond that, though, and we don't know. There is an edge of the observable universe beyond which we know nothing - the universe literally isn't old enough for light to have reached us from anything beyond this horizon.

We guess that there is nothing special about this boundary and that whatever lies beyond it is the same as what we can observe, but its just a reasonable guess as we can't have any direct observation.

Their DNA is identical. This means that anything that is exclusivly influenced by DNA will be the same.

However, there are a lot of things that are influenced by environmental factors. Fingerprints are a good example - identical twins will not have identical fingerprints because fingerprints develop based on environmental stimuli during development. Same with "naughty bits" as this is impacted by diet and exercise.

> newspapers are ads surrounded with some engaging content.

Yup. Ads are the product - news is what gets you to consume them.

I had a buddy that worked in TV advertising who used to joke that tv shows were just the filler they put between commercials. The commercials are the actual point of the broadcast.

I would speculate that their hope is that between a full exoneration in court (e.g. proof that FOX knowing lied about the anti-Dominion stories) combined with a significant enough amount of time passing (so people forget about it) their business can recover.

They thought they’d get away with it because they usually do. Worst case they’d pay a fine and move on.

Dominion is one of the few companies that doesn’t care about the cost or financial damages from the case. They want their name cleared in a very public way.

They have been pretty vocal about not settling. They want their name cleared, not the money.

Typically, no. The environment in the stomach is far too hostile to yeast to allow for the time required to ferment.

That said, there is a condition known as Auto-brewery syndrome where the stomach does not kill off the yeast fast enough and they do ferment some of the sugars, producing alcohol.

Because there is rarely anything they can do about it. It doesn't help me to know a widget it $1 in the EU when I live in the US and they all cost $2 here - I can't exactly hop on a plane and fly there to take advantage of the price differences.

If I live in a developed enough society, I can order from overseas, but often the import duties and shipping costs will negate whatever price advantage there is.

While this is true, they used a different technique during the financial crisis.

That's somewhat easy to say in hindsight when we don't have the ill effects of a more surgical program to compare. Its the key problem in economics - true experiments with control groups are incredibly rare, so we can rarely say which option was "best" with certainty.

A surgical program would have likely stemmed the inflation issue, but would also have likely taken much longer to execute, leaving people who needed funds without them for potentially months. It also would have "false negatives" - denying money entirely due to bureaucratic errors.

Whether or not that would have been worse than the partial impact it had on inflation is impossible to say.

One of the primary jobs of the intestines is to absorb water from the digested food processed by the stomach. The water is extracted and put back into the bloodstream (along with other nutrients) where it is processed by other organs. The kidneys then filter the blood for waste products and use some of the water to expel that waste.

> Coffee would become $50 a cup

Exactly this. Prices would simply increase dramatically, rendering the additional money people received moot.

>Has any country every secretly tried this?

Yes, many have, and inflation is always the result. Governments have historically printed excess cash to pay of their own debts, which inevitably leads to massive amounts of inflation. Look up what happened in Zimbabwe.

They can. The US government basically did this during the financial crisis to create money to loan to banks. They just made trillions of dollars appear in government accounts, and then loaned that money out.

The problem is that injecting huge amounts of money into an economy will cause massive inflation. The supply of goods available for sale doesn't change, so people who suddenly have large amounts of cash will simply pay more for the scarce goods that exist. Case in point, the recent inflation struggles are partly (not entirely) due to the relief funds given to people and businesses during COVID.