Fair, but I mostly meant people who really experienced and remembered it. Aged around 50+ (like Trump).
So forgetting that... Not a big deal. Remembering its old name first... OK, not remembering the current name after the old one - weird. And, finally, doing that constantly in many occasions, sign of mental problems.
I don't know, I would say after the fall of the Soviet Union its renaming was fairly common knowledge if you lived through that (even outside the former Soviet States)
I feel like there is a misunderstanding in this thread.
The universe is described by math. Math itself is also very fundamental though.
However even the Singularities are disputed and generally not liked by physicist. We try to find other explanations for how black holes work (lots of papers on this). Moreover, we never really have a singularity, but ringularities, as all black holes rotate changing the singularity to a singularity (they probably also have a charge but that is a different matter).
And on the other hand, if you are a follower of the simulation argument (I know a few physicists that are) there are also counter arguments against this (which I believe are more likely).
I think you explain it pretty well, but one thing to add. Due to the General Relativity and thus spacetime it is actually not directions that all point toward the singularity, but as soon as you cross the event horizon all of your future becomes the Singularity, not as a point in space, but a point in time
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/lightcone.html
This points at that, you would also need to be able to travel faster than light and that would make you time travel backwards in time
I mean, to be fair that is what the linkes page says, but people are misunderstanding the hypothesis everyone calls many worlds (also what the page says) as Many worlds is just a follow up of the theory not the theory itself.
Like Einsteins Relativity didn't say in the theory that we would be able to predict Mercury's orbit, but it comes from it.
That is true, but I think he was making more of a statistical statement. As in, if most people wouldn't do it, then the same sample should be applied to rich people and therefore they should change the broken system.
I think that is a bit over simplistic though. Not because rich people are inherently worse than non rich ones, although wealth might corrupt, but more so because I think you get indoctrinated when growing up and so do rich people. They probably think all is well as it is and everyone else could achieve what they did by generational wealth.
Probs only, if even, one of the reasons though
Should be Lassie, no?
That is a very very short article
What are its advantages in comparison to Heroic? Or is it just different flavour?
You are correct on the second one
So your answer is "Yes"?
As the wikipedia article cites peer reviewed study (see study tab) that even though these kind of headlines make up only ~ 2 % of all hesdlines 44 % of them answer "yes", and only 22 % answer "no" with the rest being indecisive.
True, but that is what the whistleblower warned. He said the planes would fail randomly after around 10-12 years approximately.
He was a quaility check engineer at the assembly lines (or sth similar) where the workers were forced to assemble too quickly which caused a lot of small foreign bodies (residue) to enter components with wiring that would degrade due to this.
He also said that would degrade those components much faster than expected and told to the airplane operators causing less checks and earlier failure (than was told by Boeing)