That’s the dumbest move possible.

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.

No, when you exercise, you usually do a certain amount of repetitions, short break, another set of repetitions again and so on.

Can we stop calling it the Nobel economics prize? It is not.

Nutritional yeast

Well, for half a year it’s fine, you won’t get any direct sun there.

Well, if the first step happens (people going vegan), then other protein sources will be automatically in demand. A huge chunk of protein powder nowadays is whey, that can be easily substituted by soy, because of the sufficient amino acid profile of soy.

Yeah, once you found a brand, that tastes well, it’s not an issue anymore. But paying a lot just to notice, that it tastes disgusting, kinda sucks.

We are talking about a switch to a predominantly vegan diet. People need to get the protein they got from meat from somewhere else.

But then humans can also eat that soy meal to get their proteins. It’s pretty tasty, I eat it regularly.

How about you take the study at hand and point out, where it is not well done?

Or you could use positive reinforcement instead of belittling your kids. You can explain, why stuff they did was wrong without calling them dumb. They are kids after all, they don’t know stuff, have a lot to learn and it is hard for them to completely grasp the consequences of their actions.

Do you have any sources on hand? It’s hard to google for this stuff without running into sites by PETA etc, which are too biased for my taste.

But then you doubt the number and not the general effect of reducing carbon emissions by switching to a plant-based diet, right? Because it is pretty obvious, that growing plants and then feeding those plants to animals is way more inefficient than eating the plants without extra steps.

The masturbation definitely is not the problem, the porn might be. It just gives a wrong picture of intimacy and sex to inexperienced teenagers.

You can masturbate without porn, also helps with imagination.

Why? Because all the animal herders will still produce lots of meat at a loss and then just burn everything no one wants to eat?