Apparently this happened after filming wrapped. Which implies it happened during teardown of the set(s).

American jingoism is the gift that keeps giving.

There is a new model that I read about the other day that avoids the need for dark matter/energy and extends the age of the universe.

I've always (armchair astro physicist) thought that the dark matter/energy was always just a fudge to fit an ill-fitting model to observations (which isn't inherently wrong). It just means the model is wrong.

I agree.

One has to take it in context. Particularly when we simultaneously say "don't judge a book by it's cover" (despite that literally being the point of a book's cover in a bookstore).

Charles Lamanna, Microsoft’s executive vice president of Copilot, Agents, and Platform, said in a statement.

Click bait title indeed.

I mean, we just know that this is all because they've AI-slopped themselves into this situation and that the headline practically wrote itself, but...

The obviousness of this eventuality (to everyone in the industry) is inversely proportional to remuneration.

Most of the universe is hydrogen.

I don't know if we can tell reliably (yet) what exoplanets are made of, but generally the assumption is that our solar system is chemically typical, so we extrapolate that for other star systems.

Carl Sagan famously said that from his 1980 television series “Cosmos”:

“The Cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the Universe to know itself.”

They'll rename it JC Comics.

No, not like that!

Christians, probably.

His biggest frustration? The haka in parliament. Can't have those uppity Murrays doing their uppity Murray stuff in parliament.

Good riddance to a racist piece of shit.

Sigh. No, I don't.

First, I apologize for the insult earlier, it was not constructive nor warraned.

You've failed to divine Dahl's meaning behind the quote from The Twits. Or more likely I've failed to explain it in way that saticfies your needs (which is on me, not you).

Dahl's point, which I generally agree with, is that a person's demeanour is shown on their face by their expressions. A person with an 'ugly' demeanor probably has 'ugly' expressions.

Dahl's point is that your expressions convey information and he draws a distinction between having 'bad' features versus having 'bad' expressions.

In the vast and complex field of neurodivergence that generalisation can fall apart when one's expressions no longer convey information about your thoughts.