Scientists say "We don't know for sure" when they definitively can't say the odds are zero. "Will flinging satellites out of the solar system change the orbit of the earth, causing it to plunge into the sun." "We don't know for sure." "Will setting off a nuclear bomb ignite the entire atmosphere?" "We don't know for sure." "Will running the Large Hadron Collider create strange matter that will annihilate the entire universe?" "We don't know for sure." The first question was asked by you, the other two were asked by senior officials at some point in the last 100 years. Even before they were asked, scientists were fairly certain that wouldn't be the result, but there was some small chance that it could, and scientists generally don't say "No" unless there is absolutely no chance something will happen.
GreyEyedGhost
Estimates for Starliner are currently at about $2.5 billion, with multiple test flights. Costs for the first launch of SLS was close to $5 billion. NASA is not where you go to see how little something could cost.
Which is the point. Voting third party won't fix the system, certainly not at the presidential level. So work with what you have now, and work towards something better in the areas where it's actually possible.
A reasonably safe, fairly effective pipe bomb is easy to make with the some basic theory and high school chemistry knowledge. A moderately safe, highly effective pipe bomb requires only slightly more knowledge and a deeper understanding of high school chemistry. This stuff was easy enough that people were using it over half a thousand years ago to good effect. If you can't figure it out now with a couple weeks effort and the breadth of knowledge at our disposal, that's on you.
Doing something that demonstrably doesn't work isn't how you get what you want. If you want an option besides Democrats and Republicans, voting for someone else where those two options have a lock on winning does nothing besides vent some spleen.
I'm not saying doing nothing is the solution, or even voting for the two main parties is the solution, but doing something that has been shown to be completely ineffective is not the solution.
Massive changes have been happening in the battery field for decades, they just aren't fast. Our rechargeable batteries are smaller, more energy-dense, longer-lasting, and cheaper than they were 40 years ago. They aren't magical, last forever, infinite power, instant recharge batteries, though, that's correct.
And absolutely HUGE pockets!
16% so far!
Remember, if it wasn't for Larry Ellison, LibreOffice wouldn't exist. I remember reading about those shenanigans while they were happening and desperately hoping a fork would appear soon. I wasn't disappointed.
I like how the face of every screw in that last picture is different. That's something, I guess.
Well, that's terrible, sure, but do you know how much they spend in American arms purchases?!
We lose thousands of tons of mass every year in the form of gases and gain a lesser amount in material from asteroids over the same period. The mass gain appears to have been quite dramatic, back when the earth was formed. Chaos would have reigned for a significant period after that, then we would likely have had a constantly diminishing amount of asteroid impacts. When exactly the earth went from a net annual gain of mass to a net loss is hard to say, but if you were to ask if the mass of the earth-moon system maintained an annual net zero mass change at any point, the answer would probably be "We don't know for sure."