No, from the abstract of the paper "The orbital period, 185.6 days, is longer than that of any known stellar mass black hole binary. [...] How the system formed is uncertain. Common envelope evolution can only produce the system's wide orbit under extreme and likely unphysical assumptions"
See section 8.4 for details: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06833
But basically the idea is that they are assumed to have interacted in the past (based on the distance), and given that, all current models of such interactions would predict a very tight final orbit for the solar mass star.
yttrium and indium are both suspected to be toxic, manganese can certainly be toxic. no idea about the relative doses, I suspect that the chemists certainly thought about this etc, so I'm not trying to say YInMn is toxic, but "inorganic, has simple structure" doesn't mean anything, as it also describes Cobalt Blue, which is definitely toxic.
In a way--my question boils down to why this was written in the first place. Engaging with literary criticism is an invitation to perpetuate literary criticism :P
Everybody says this all the time, to such an extent that an article was written to express the contrary view
I'm also pretty sure that given a famous "highbrow" literature or art work, you could easily find plenty of respected critics who think it's shit, and vice versa for "lowbrow" works.
I'm not sure why you switched to worldwide when it specifically said DRC. Most economic indicators there have been flat or declining for the last 50 years. Vague platitudes about the world as a whole are unhelpful, and if anything only serve to reinforce the mythology of universal progress.
To be honest, I can't imagine a situation in which I would need a new law in order to have follow age of consent laws. Like, you are really complaining that if a user says they're underage, you have to treat them as such? Or that if you operate in multiple countries you have to look up the relevant laws? All of this seems like a basic requirement, and I'm honestly shocked that it was never an issue before.
We already comply with age of consent laws. GDPR changes the law and adds lots of edge cases around users transitioning from valid user -> invalid user as I described above.
I'm not complaining. I'm just saying it's not basic or simple. I often see the attitude that, "Oh that should be easy" when someone hasn't implemented something.
It reminds me of people who have taken the programming 101 class telling me, creating Amazon is easy, its just a webpage. Or I could completely run Twitter off of just 4 machines.
That's a far easier scenario than the ones involving recursively generated AIs. You are, and would likely be charged with Murder 2 in most US jurisdictions.
Wrong analogy. I set up a blank slate. Random people on the internet start to mould it into a gun that fires on people incrementally, each step fairly innocuous. Who is responsible?
"who is responsible?" is a philosophical question that probably has no objective answer.
"who would be held responsible?" is still pretty easy here. by default, if you own or release to the public a system that ends up hurting someone, you are liable. it doesn't matter what your intent was or whether there was any way of knowing that the bad outcome would happen. the only way you can get around this is with "safe harbor" exemptions. it's possible that your blank slate would qualify, although you would probably have to lobby for this before the fact. in that case, no one would be held responsible. otherwise, you would be paying.
The community has a garbage tip. Due to an abundance of uraniaum, everyone starts discarding it. When the garbage tip reaches critical mass and kills everyone, who was to blame?
"NASA did not invent the smoke detector. NASA's connection to the modern smoke detector is that it made one with adjustable sensitivity as part of the Skylab project. The device was made commercially available by Honeywell. The consumer could use it to avoid "nuisance" alarms while cooking. Like the quartz clock, this device is no longer available. "
This is a fairly uncharitable interpretation of Kuhn's thought. Please read my above explanation of Kuhn's thought or, better yet, skip the middleman and read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and get it from the man himself :)
See section 8.4 for details: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06833 But basically the idea is that they are assumed to have interacted in the past (based on the distance), and given that, all current models of such interactions would predict a very tight final orbit for the solar mass star.