Actually, that’s a very reasonable speculation. I hadn’t thought of that angle.

Yes, that is what I read roguetrick as saying. The headline should include the lede “viral load undetectable, even after therapeutics stops”, however, this lede gets buried in the article, instead of highlighted in the headline.

I mean, you do realize people don’t have to write a letter that says “let’s break the law together.” People in the 19th century were capable of waltzing over to the hermitage, chatting in a backroom, and leaving with an “understanding”.

The Georgia officials took their actions with the accurate perception that the federal government would choose not to enforce federal law. And they were right, and AJ was the person who happened to not be enforcing the law. He doesn’t have to write down on a piece of paper that he didn’t enforce the law, we see that he didn’t.

I really do appreciate your excellent summary of events, and it is interesting to frame it as Georgia ignoring the Supreme Courts ruling rather than Jackson, but I wonder to what extent Georgia ignored the Supreme Court ruling with Jackson’s blessing. You could argue that it is really Pam Bondi ignoring court orders, and not Trump, but, of course, Trump could tell Pam Bondi (or whoever) to stop ignoring court orders. In theory the executive branch’s role is to enforce the orders of the court, and, by making it clear to Georgia that he had no intention of enforcing court orders, this could have enabled the state government to continue on in illegal activities that, if the rule of law were followed, should not have happened.

You clearly know more about this than me, so I’m not trying to argue, but the failure of the rule of law is obviously always a collective failure, and many many people enable it, and it still seems fair to me to pin some of the blame on AJ, though obviously not as much as I was implying.

Or, the wall wart could be a network adaptor for an ethernet over power system, and the packets could be running though the power lines…. But almost certainly not that.

Right! It’s like when the Supreme Court told Andy Jackson that he couldn’t just forcibly deport Cherokee from their peaceful and prosperous farming communities. He just ignored the law, and brought generational shame to the US government. In a surprisingly close parallel it turns out that DJT can do the same thing, except this time even the Supreme Court doesn’t want him to follow the law. Strange times.

Oh the little red hen took a grain of wheat, said this looks good enough to eat…

Look up “the little red song book”

I mean, that is sweat and all as something that particular professor thinks, but doctors in the United States don’t have to treat anyone they don’t want to, and we already see them denying prenatal care based on marital status. I’m sure sexual preference are just around the bend.

No, surrounded by love ones is fine, but it’s preferable if you have your dignity intact.

Yet, a song that doesn’t know how to end properly is terrible. A book that doesn’t know how to end properly is terrible. You have to learn how to die properly, or your life will be terrible.

Do you guys remember Roy Moore from Alabama who sexually assaulted a half dozen women and girls, some as young as 14, and still only narrowly lost the primary?

I mean, geodetic interferometers already exist and can measure very small deviations. Give them arms the length of the observable universe and they will increase in accuracy, not decrease in accuracy.

If you constructed a circle with the radius of the universe, then measured its circumference and radius measurement accuracy would easily be able to tell the difference between a real circle and a mathematical circle. That is because neither the perimeter of circle will nor the diameter of the circle will be through in empty space. They will be near enough to matter to measure detectable deflections.

From your measurement of pi, we can deduce that you live in an anti-de Sitter space, so all the string theorists will now be sending you emails to test out their theories.

Overly snarky response: Uhhhm. Have you been asleep since, what, 1915 or something? We have extraordinary evidence, and everyone has accepted it, in so far as I know.

Less snarky response: the path on which light moves is the universes instantiation of a straight line. It is “the (locally) shortest path between two points”, the same definition you learned in geometry class. Yet in our universe, two straight lines can intersect each other twice. This is because our universe has at least some local curvature, meaning it is locally non Euclidean. In order to have a mathematically perfect circle you would need to live in a universe without any matter or energy, and with certain other properties.

The universe is non-Euclidean, so no circle made in the actual geometry of the universe actually has the ratio of pi between its circumference and diameter.

Is that the part you are confused about, or did I write something else badly?

[finding people who don’t know that we live in non Euclidean space these days is like finding people who think the sun goes round the earth. But I guess if people can’t be bothered to learn 350 year old mathematics, they also can’t be bothered to learn 100 year old physics. Oh well.]

One thing to be aware of is that if you actually made a circle and measured its radius and circumference you wouldn’t get pi. Not because your measurements would be off, but because the universe does not follow the assumptions mathematicians used to define pi—namely Euclidean geometry. Pi is mathematical, not physical. If real circles and real diameters don’t give you pi that is a problem for the universe, not a problem for mathematics.

Do you guys ever think about the term ‘banana republic’?

It’s strange that, in popular culture, it is seen as a criticism of a under developed nation with a corrupt government, when it was coined to criticize very specifically the United State of America using their military to help deeply abusive corporations gain as much money as possible growing literal bananas.

But surely the USofA stopped that practice in the 1910’s, right?

I did use a lot of words to say “I don’t know” didn’t I.

🤷‍♂️ because when we flip all their quantum numbers we still call them a photon? They have no charge, so if you flip their charge they still have no charge. They have no color, so if you flip their color they are still colorless, etc. The ability of a particle to interfere with itself is a general property of all particles, because all particles are probability waves, so this isn’t special to a photon.