Specific genres are awesome to find new bands, that you like, because they sound similar. If I like power metal and you recommend me Behemoth, because I like metal, your suggestion has no value for me, while I probably would like another power metal band like Blind Guardian.

Yeah, that’s getting even worse.

Well since we are at anecdotal evidence. I am in the academics bubble, where quite a few of my friends also got children and they love it. You don’t like kids, so you see all the problems that come with having children. You are looking for confirmation bias. There are more than enough people that do not hate children. I mean, we are kinda biologically programmed to procreate.

Countries in Europe got most of that and they are still struggling with getting to the replacement rate.

Europe got both, we are still below replacement rate.

The information you get might be biased, because people love to vent about bad stuff, but do not mention the rewarding stuff, that makes it worth it.

No, it’s actually bad for everyone, because few young people have to support loads of old people. Politics will cater to the old people, because they have more voting power in numbers and will cut budgets for young people (education, social security and so on).

It’s also that people do not need a lot of children anymore, so that some survive to take care of them, when they’re old.

Are you not able to buy vegetables, fruits, pasta, rice, beans and so on in your local supermarket?

Well, these governments obviously were not right enough. A real right wing party will fix all the problems! \s

There are multiple reasons for that. We don’t know the decay channels of already discovered particles precisely. So there might be very rare processes, that contribute to already known particles. It is all a statistical process. While you can give statements on a large number of events, it is nearly impossible to do it for one event. Most of the particles are very short-lived and won’t be visible themselves in a detector (especially neutral particles). Some will not interact with anything at all (neutrinos). Then your detectors are not 100% efficient, so you can’t detect all the energy, that was released in the interaction or the decay of a particle. The calorimeters, that are designed to completely stop any hadrons (particles consisting of quarks) have a layer of a very dense material, to force interactions, followed by a detector material. All the energy lost in the dense material is lost for the analysis. In the end you still know, how much energy was not detected, because you know the initial energy, but everything else gets calculated by models, that are based on known physics. A neutral weakly interacting particle would just be attributed as a neutrino.

These things are really special interest. They developed small scale particle detectors, that are nowadays used in medical physics for example (PET scanners and so on). Then their electronics need to be very insensitive to radiation damage, that is also important for everything space related. There is probably some R&D on superconducting magnets as well, that can be adapted to other purposes, but I am not too up to date in this field and I am not sure, if Cern is a major player there.

The thing is, that you can’t predict, what fundamental science will lead to. In the case of the LHC the tangible returns are technologies, that can be adapted to other fields, like detectors. There are enough other arguments, why a bigger accelerator is a bad idea, where you do not need to trash fundamental research as a whole.

Yeah, but you could also fund a lot of other research with this budget. The point is, physicists just don’t know, if there are more particles existing. There is no theoretical theory there predicting particles at a certain mass with certain decay channels. They won’t know what to look for. That’s actually already a problem for the LHC. They have this huge amount of data, but when you don’t know, what kind of exotic particles you are looking for and how they behave, you can’t post-process the data accordingly. They are hidden under a massive amounts of particles, that are known already.

And that’s relevant enough for the headline of the article?

In German state media a comment was printed, that basically said “Israel is a democracy and so they won’t commit any war crimes. And if they do, there will be consequences afterwards”. It was an awful read, basically giving Israel free reign.

The whole discussion started for winter conditions. You can find the numbers in the other comment thread.

1l/h as I noted further down. Still less range lost relative to the maximal range than in an EV.

The answers to your question is already in my post and the 150 was obviously a typo, because the loss in range checks out. It should be 15. AC uses less because the temperature difference is less.

From cooling the engine. When you are standing still and the engine is running it consumes about 1l/h. I just looked up some numbers for EVs: 100kWh battery, heating takes 1kW for every 10K temperature difference, so 3kWh in -10°C. Its higher if you use additional stuff like the heating for the seats. With 150kWh/100km consumption you lose 20km every hour you are in the heated car. I would say that’s a noticeable difference compared to no heating. I also checked how much an AC takes in summer and its about 1 to 2kW for 30°C.