Not really. We can trace everything back using current physical constants and known and experimentally reproducible laws. The only real anomaly is the inflationary period, which appears to suggest that during this time the universe expanded faster than the speed of light... but this I think is more a consequence of 'normal' physical laws not holding at vast energies. The inflationary period after all lasted from about 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds after the big bang. We can trace the history of the universe with some confidence back to this point. Once you hit the inflationary epoch, you are sufficiently close to the bb itself that we can consider this beyond the current scope of our knowledge.

We do not know whether the big bang happened, it's a singularity, a backwards extrapolation to an isolated point. Singularities involve mathematical infinities, involve the exponential progressing to the vertical, an asymptote. Same with black holes. We can't define the singularity other than as a mathematical end point. It may not in fact be an end point at all, just a phenomenal concentration of energy that requires laws that we don't - and perhaps can't - understand (coming back to my earlier point about spatial extent and temporal progression being the framework of our perception rather than anything 'objective'). Perhaps the bb is the outpouring of a super-massive white hole, perhaps time flips into an 'earlier' universe on the other side... perhaps the bb is a collision between two lower dimensional universes within a higher dimensional multiverse, giving birth to our own... we have no idea.

But... we do know that the universe of today expanded from a tiny tiny point, right back at around 10^-32 seconds after the unknown/unknowable event that we term the big bang.

Whilst teams do have a bit of leeway for development next year, it's very limited. I wouldn't anticipate that Ferrari can be up there challenging for race wins in 2021.
However... a bad performance this season will actually help Ferrari a little bit for 2021. The lower a team finishes this year, the more aerodynamic development they are permitted next year... which will of course aid their 2022 development - 2022 being  the full reset with new rules and new cars for everyone.


https://www.racefans.net/2020/10/06/f1s-new-aero-handicap-rules-mean-ferraris-dire-season-will-help-them-in-2022/

I think so, yes. Dangerous to hype anyone this crazy season! Villa I still think look good enough for top half, maybe 9th or 10th. Should avoid a relegation struggle quite comfortably.


Yes, very impressive from Leeds. This season gets crazier! Just when you think one team looks solid, they get picked apart. Everyone looks vulnerable right now, Everton probably the only team left that haven't collapsed unexpectedly - and so deserved holders of the last remaining unbeaten team accolade.

Not sure what happened there with Bamford in the Villa-Leeds game, he looked a better player than he usually does. Excellent hat-trick. What soured it for me was the ridiculous play-acting for his penalty appeal - reminiscent of Rivaldo at the corner flag.

It's PayPal's addition of crypto that has caused the surge. Not that you can do much with it, AFAIK you can't buy with it or receive with it, you can just hold it there.
... but it's a start, and potentially a significant step on the road to mainstream adoption. If all the millions of non-crypto people who use PayPal now see that this legitimate mainstream business is dipping into bitcoin and a couple of top alts (and, for some reason, BCH), then that can only be a good thing.

The F1 race should be an interesting one this weekend. It's an unusual track with some considerable elevation changes across the lap, which brings a new challenge.
It will be new to most drivers as it's never been an F1 race before. However, it's perhaps notable that Hamilton has driven here before (testing for McLaren in 2009), so that may give Ham a slight advantage (not that he needs one)...

I disagree with the body of your post, but agree wholeheartedly with the thread title.



The BBC is and always has been just the PR arm of the Conservative party. They play a major role in shaping public opinion and keeping the Conservatives in power. They are as 'establishment' as you can get.
https://www.socialist.net/politics-at-the-bbc-a-who-s-who-of-the-establishment.htm

Whilst every mainstream media source has inherent preferences and biases, I'd still regard the Guardian as better than most. In recent years, they've been responsible for breaking news on Wikileaks, Snowden, Panama Papers etc., and unlike every other paper they are run by an independent Trust.

They are astonishingly tough. But it's not just this ability to jump back on the bike after having a crash, it's also the ridiculous levels of bravery they exhibit. They've all had big crashes before, but it doesn't slow them down one bit. You see them pedalling as hard as they can whilst riding steeply downhill on a wet mountain road. It takes a lot to be a top cyclist... the combination of physical ability and mental attitude that are demanded are perhaps unmatched in any other sport.

The absurdities arise because the government are trying to reconcile two conflicting objectives: 1) keep shops and other businesses open, and 2) stop the virus from spreading. When these two come into conflict, the government response is to prioritise the economy over the virus. Hence businesses must remain open, and best efforts are made to contain the virus.

You can always find individual cases to support any given argument. But I'm not sure what your argument is here. I don't think it's fair to demonise an individual without knowing their circumstances, and based on what is likely a sensationalised news piece - as you said "mass media reports are obsessed with dramatising".

They're only unhealthy if you don't wear them. Wearing them over just mouth does confer reduced protection, so if you're going to wear one then obviously nose and mouth is preferable. But I do have sympathy with people who have to wear them all day every day. I'd suggest plastic screens as an alternative, but we've had that discussion already.

That's not really true. Whilst co-morbidities and immune system strength are important, the fact is that old people still died before vaccines and health products were invented; people don't just continue indefinitely. Ageing is the process of cumulative accrual of cell replication errors throughout your life. Getting older makes you weaker and more vulnerable, naturally. Plus there is the vulnerability to late-onset diseases (most early onset diseases [i.e. before procreation age] are obviously excluded from the gene-pool by natural selection). Diseases can make you more vulnerable, and weaken your immune system, and this correlates with age. Unfortunately it's not the case that we're all immortal indomitable supermen who are brought down only by evil vaccines.

Age could be the crucial factor. I know all three (Fed, Nadal, Djok) are all playing really well into their thirties... but Federer is 39 now, and surely he can't stay up at the top for much longer? Which would leave the French with Nadal, so he gains +1 slam each year... but the other 3 you'd prefer Djokovic to Nadal, so he has 3 big chances and one outside chance each year to catch Federer. Ignoring the up-and-coming stars, who aren't quite at the 'big 3' level. But given Nadal's ridiculous dominance in France, you wouldn't put it past him to keep winning in Roland Garros every year into his forties!

Villa vs Leeds is a difficult one to call. Villa have probably been flattered a bit by results, particularly the Leicester one where they won right at the end. Leeds had that close match vs Liverpool, and also drew with Man City... plus they still have the upwards momentum from their promotion season. Could go either way really, although Villa's defence looks strong, so perhaps a 0-0 might be the likeliest outcome (even in this high-scoring season).

It's not just an issue for 'physical' jobs. We are now in the age of big data, which offers huge potential for machine learning advancement, which in turn leads to the threat fo a lot of 'white collar' jobs being automated out.
The question is will new jobs arise to replace the old, jobs that only humans can do? I'm skeptical - if you automate out human labour, there are still jobs that require human intellect... if you automate out human intellect, where is there left to go?
This is why schemes such as UBI are enjoying so much attention... in preparation for a potential future with much fewer jobs available.

Yes. The problem when you lose the very best player is that anyone who comes in - even if they're very good - will still never be quite as good as the original. It's a big ask for someone to fill the role of Van Dijk, and to do so not just in individual matches, but consistently for the full length of time he is going to be out of action. Bigger tests do lie ahead, and teams will be ruthless and try to exploit the gap that Van Dijk has left. Even if the replacement is excellent, it's still a point of vulnerability.

The club is in a mess. No doubt this will lead to increased tensions between the players on and off the pitch, which will surely only harm their performances and results. The problem is they need to rebuild, which means buying players, but they need to cut the huge wage bill in able to afford to do that. Of course players like Messi want to leave anyway, and he was prevented from doing so. He surely won't feel that he should make sacrifices for them... they could have cut their wage bill massively just by letting him go. But instead they demanded that he stay, and are now saying 'you need to lower your wage demands, we can't afford you'. The situation is absurd.

1. Online, definitely. I find it easier to relax and make logical decisions this way.
2. Only a small amount initially, but if I win then I'm willing to spend a large proportion of any profit.
3. Both the same really, stop when I believe I'm making decisions based on the streak itself rather than any logical basis. Of course if I'm still winning, I'm more likely to continue... but the same rule still applies, and I'll try not to take silly risks because of the 'lucky' streak.
4. Poker.
5. Rely on cold, hard logic as much as you can. Luck is irrelevant as it will even itself out over the course of time. For poker, be willing to continually revise and refine your assessments of other players' styles and personalities.... don't rely on a fixed initial assessment.

This is true. It's not just the case of bringing in a load of world class players - that would get you a good team, but not a world-beating team. To be world-beating (or even just Real Madrid beating) those players need to be a cohesive unit, a team rather than a collection of talented individuals. It takes money to buy the players, but it takes time to get them all to work together as a fluid unit. Time is the key factor here. They're not going to instantly be great. And given that Messi will likely leave at the end of the season, that makes their task even more difficult.

There is certainly evidence to support this, even in US presidential elections. Quotes below from this article.


Whilst most people are not affected, it does impact the decisions of people who are unsure who to pick, but also want to (or feel obligated to) vote for someone. This does make sense. Universal suffrage is a hard-won right, and I can imagine there are people who will make absolutely certain they take advantage of that right, even if they have no real preference of candidate.

In 2016,
Also:


Apparently (as of 2017) California and Ohio are the exception:

The "state's officials" bit could be important there - particularly if this is happening in swing states.


Bit of an aside, but presumably (and in fact from personal experience, although not in the US) the effect is more pronounced in committee elections - I have received ballot papers where you can vote for 3 candidates, but there are 10 standing, 5 from each major party. If you just want 3 from your choice of party, but aren't bothered which ones, there's an obvious benefit to being top of the list.

I suppose we do see this sort of thing already to a lesser extent with flu and other viruses sweeping through a team, and players perhaps missing a game or at least playing at reduced capacity. The difference with CV19 of course is that the effect is much more dramatic, with players being forced to miss matches entirely for a couple of weeks. It's more obvious to people betting, because rather than the name being on the team sheet but the player carrying a bit of a virus, they are simply not on the team sheet at all, and the fact is announced beforehand... whereas with flu or a cold, perhaps nothing is announced.

So if he simply changed his name to _Trump, he'd be at the top of the list? That's got to confer at least a small advantage. Even competing as 'Donald, The' would bump him up a few places.
Unless when you change your name, you're only allowed to use alphabetic characters - in which case what about the squiggle formerly known as Pence Prince?

Yes, that's what I said There's no way they'll hold on to second or a champions league qualification place, Europa league place seems unlikely too. But they were solid after the lockdown restart, and look more solid now. I'm not saying they're an outsider for the title, more that they look like a decent mid-table team now rather than relegation scrappers.


Similarly with Everton, they look better than last season, but there's no chance they'll remain top of the table. There's a huge gulf between the top few teams and everyone else. I expect to see Liverpool and Man City top two, followed by the usual Arsenal/Chelsea/Spurs/Man U.