Not generally. It generally refers to first names more than surnames. It also strongly implies that you actively want to kill the name off, not just move to the new one. It’s changing names with prejudice against the old one.

Refering to someone by their maiden name is generally not considered insulting. Dead naming someone (after you’re aware) is extremely insulting.

Take a look at some of the taxidermy at the time. It’s horrifyingly bad. Then again modern amateur taxidermy can be as bad as well.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/hilariously-bad-lion-taxidermy

A depressing number also decided, I voted labour, and nothing changed (when they didn’t win). I’m going to try conservative now.

I used to think that. Unfortunately, you’ll be proven wrong with time. I really did have a lot of energy, when I was younger. I’m now having to be ever smarter with what I have, just to tread water.

The worst thing is the advent of AI image generation. Until now, faking a photo took a lot of skilled effort to do well. Holocaust deniers get shot down fairly easily due to the diligent documentation done at the time. One of the generals even ordered it despite protests (it slowed down giving aid). He knew that future generations wouldn’t believe the level we can sink too.

Now (or in the near future) generating near flawless fakes will be easy. A photograph of a war crime will be no more believable than a scene from an action movie. We’ll likely find work around, but until then, we are in a dead zone on reliability of images.

It seems to allow it, in a sense. The errors are also left on the transmission end. By transmitting them normally, the 2 signals can be combined to recreate the data. Something is shared, at some point.

It’s definitely a “we’re not sure what’s actually going on” type situation though. Either both ends are drawing on some (otherwise) hidden data layer, or FTL transmission is allowed, so long as no information flows (information as defined by quantum mechanics). It just turns out that weird entanglement based systems are the only ones (we’ve found so far) able to send infomationless transmissions.

Both solutions would give deeper insights into reality, and its underpinnings. Unfortunately, we’ve not actually teased out which is happening.

My gut feeling is that the speed of light is a side effect of a fixed/stable causality across all rest frames. Hidden information seems to be a lot more cumbersome.

You’re assuming the brain is still running entirely on wetware.

Most of the more recent benefits have been by working smarter, within the boundaries, rather than pushing the boundaries. Both have diminishing returns.

There’s still room for improvement in both, but not infinitely. We likely already have a lot of the low hanging fruit for brute computing tasks.

The universe seems to be keyed to disallow time travel. The speed of light limit, in relativity, is sat exactly at the limit where time travel would become possible. Conversely, quantum mechanics does allow for FTP transmission. What it doesn’t allow is information to flow along those links. It’s hit with a 0.5 error rate, which completely blocks FTP communication.

General relativity does allow for a few time travel options. However, these are sat well off in the sticks, where quantum relativity would dominate. Since we don’t have such a theory yet, our predictions are likely wrong. Even within these theories, a time machine would require a “closed timelike curve”. These can, in theory be made using several rapidly rotating black holes. Any ship traversing it, would never be able to leave before the time machine was built.

Basically, time travel is almost certainly blocked by our laws of physics. Any loopholes would be limited to the lifetime of the “machine” and would require stellar level engineering for even a few seconds of travel.

Not got anything to particularly hand. It’s mostly offhand articles and pub discussions (drunken freeform thinking is remarkably common and useful in physicists, let alone with undergrads). By its nature, it is into the realm of philosophy, rather than science. It is untestable, since there couldn’t be any communication with other bubbles.

As for the time flow, it’s fairly arbitrary. We perceive ourselves moving through time via indirect means. Those are potentially an illusion, even in our bubble. The rate of entropy, or the speed of light could be vastly different. That would change the perceived “speed of time” (whatever that means!) compared to some arbitrary communal rest frame.

The big issue is that we don’t currently understand our own space-time. Speculating on over variances is very much “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.

If you want something a little more scientific, cosmic bubble theory is the current version of the theory.

Oh, and the same base assumptions basically preclude FTL. In a relativistic universe, FTL is time travel, with all the resultant problems (tachyonic anti-telephone being just the most obvious)

Interestingly it’s possible the universe could be older elsewhere. One of the theories regarding the big bang is that space-time underwent a phase change. The higher level phase had sufficiently different physics to let the energy level equalise despite the speed of light limits.

There is no reason the entire thing collapsed back into its current state at once. 1 theory has it happening as energy density dropped below a critical limit. Others have “bubbles” of “normal” space time forming, and expanding through the unshifted medium. There is no reason bubbles couldn’t be massively apart, temporally. The catch is, the bubbles will likely never have any communication, rendering the point abstract at best.

There’s also no reason the bubbles collapsed the same way. Other bubbles could have a vastly different flow rate of time, or a different number of spacial dimensions.

This is all head-of-a-pin physics however. As it stands, we couldn’t detect even a type 3 civilization out near the edge of our observable universe. That is also before light cone issues.

That relies on the “tired light” hypothesis being correct. It solves a number of problems, in a more elegant way. However, it also requires explanations for some new mismatches. E.g. why the cosmic background radiation doesn’t seem to have aged the same way.

It’s a theory that can’t be immediately dismissed, which makes it interesting, but it’s far from proven. Scientists can now look for details that would differ between the 2 models, and so help clarify what is happening.

Most will still work without an internet connection, you just lose some of the QoL functionality. I believe some can also work with Home Assistant, for self hosting those functions. Unfortunately they generally require an initial internet connection to set up.

I invested in a self emptying one. It empties the dustbin and automatically cleans the mop. I just have to dump the waste water every week or so, and fill up the clean.

Not necessarily. All we know is that everything seemed to come from a single point, on a cosmic scale. However, at that scale, our entire galaxy would be considered a single point.

What we do know is that everything is expanding, and that it was homogeneous by the point that it cooled enough to cease being a plasma (and so opaque to light). It could have been a vast area that suddenly spawned matter/energy, rather than a single point.

Interestingly, the turbo button didn’t speed up your system. Turning it off deliberately slowed it down.

This was needed since some games etc assumed a fixed clock speed. When the clock ran faster, the game ran too fast. Pressing the turbo button to off was one of the first attempts at an emulation of older systems.

Apparently that quote was where a scriptwriter almost screwed Bush over.

The full phrase is “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Bush realised he was about to give the media a sound bite of him saying “Shame on me”.

Given the context, it’s far more understandable why he flubbed it.

The question is, how that trend develops. Right now, our footprint is dropping, due to efficiency improvements. At the same time, that might change again. E.g. large scale Comms between a home world, like earth, and other planets.

There is also the problem of older civilisations. Any approaching type 2 will be VERY visible, as the spectrum of their star changes. In terms of human history, we are a long way off. In ages of the universe scales, 10,000 years is practically a blip. We see no evidence of Dyson swarms or anything of that nature. An extra 13 billion years is a LONG time for no one to leave a detectable footprint.

To further add to this. The concern is related to what is nicknamed “the great filter”. The drake equation tries to estimate the number of communicating civilisations within range of us. Even with quite pessimistic terms, it still implies there should be lots of them. Therefore, a term is likely missing or wrong. This is known as the great filter.

If the great filter is behind us, that’s fine. E.g. abiogenesis being vastly harder, and so less likely, than we think. However, it could also be ahead of us. If it is, it likely won’t be far. We are already entering the era where we are detectable on an interstellar distance. Nukes and climate change have been raised as potential “great filters”.

An alternative idea is that we are not typical. If we are one of the first civilisations to reach this level, at least locally, then we would see very little. An older universe makes this significantly less likely.

Nvidia GPUs aren’t the only way to run a machine learning type system. They are just the easiest to use, currently. China has also been developing their own AI optimised chips. Though I don’t know much/anything about them.