Draconic_NEO

The designs probably haven't fundamentally changed all that much from their older versions.

Not sure, I guess the idea is that in the film they were saying they faked the space race to get the Soviets to work harder and waste money, but it doesn't really make sense and I think that's the whole point. It's meant to be absurd propaganda.

What are you talking about, we all know the lunar landings were faked to bankrupt the soviets /j

Seriously though, best bet for long distance space exploration just like they said in that movie is to find a wormhole. It's probably the only real way to travel across the universe in any reasonable amount of time.

Edit: Do people not get the movie reference to Interstellar?

Well it will make them cold if you put it down there.

Would Anomalocaris actually do well in the modern world. I feel like they probably wouldn't do so well in the modern ecosystems of much more evolved marine creatures. Would get out-competed very quickly, and likely face plenty of other challenges. Being out-competed is likely the reason they went extinct in the first place.

Unfortunately reality doesn't always work out the way maths intended it to. Almost all the ones I've gotten had many of them broken. Makes for slick marketing though.

I think the only thing that is really pumpkin about pumpkin spice is the association with pumpkin pie. Pumpkin on its own doesn't have much flavor though so it would taste like whatever you put on it. If the combination weren't used in Pumpkin pie as much as it is, it probably wouldn't even be called pumpkin spice.

All 3 states exist at the same time, rapidly alternating between them.

Don't fluids conform to the shape of their container? In a sense both fluid and gas would be conforming but solid wouldn't be because solids don't conform to the shape of their container.

Was going to say exactly that, not all lead came from radioactive decay. So this kind of ruins their debunk, Earth's age has been measured by the amount of lead.

Exactly.

Let's also not forget that Scientists are also humans. Humans with their own beliefs and biases which do get transferred into studies. Peer review can help reduce that but since peers are also humans with their own biases, but also common biases shared amongst humans it's not bulletproof either.

There will always be some level of bias which clouds judgement, or makes you see/think things that aren't objectively true, sometimes it comes with good intention, others not so much. It's always there though, and probably always will be. The key to good science is making it as minimal as possible.