Confusion

I don't agree hearing and balance are the same sensory organ. They are two separate organs, just very near each other and indeed resembling each other, which explains why they are near each other.

The thought I was expressing is that there seems to be no separate organ at all here and that seems unexpected to me. I would expect there to at least be something like a specialized region. Not just that the eye in general happens to also have this ability.

It seems suspicious that this would be hiding in the eyes. A separate specialized organ would be more like the other senses.

Not necessarily. You can measure things in ways that add energy: e.g. radar waves contribute a tiny bit of energy to the things they bounce off. Yet they measure where objects are.

You can also measure some things in ways that add exactly 0 energy. If some quantum system absorbs exactly nothing of a certain wavelength, that tells you something about the system.

Corn is much lower than it was 8 years ago, steel is at the same level as it was in 2018/2019, lumber only up 50% from last peak in 2018 (and price fluctuates a lot currently).

Theoretically, yes. In practice their UI simply may not have that option and you don’t just build something like that reliably on such short notice.

Ironically, you obviously didn't read the OP, as it clearly mentions people could at least bother to read the, free, abstract.

One way of discovering what increases property X is testing that some change decreases property X.

Another way of discovering what increases property X is testing that some change indeed increases property X, while also discovering it decreases property Y.

While attempting to increase both X and Y, they made an intermediate with increased X and decreased Y. Perhaps it seemed a promising starting point to also increase Y.

I don't get the surprise. This is all par for the course in research.

You have obviously not actually read the article and are railing against a strawman.

The third of your ‘easiest explanations’ is pretty much the third explanation offered in the article. The article is an object level description of what happened, with little to no speculation, apart from three tentative explanations, and does not endorse any remarkable claims about how the world operates.

You have invented that ‘implication’; nothing in the article even hints at that being the obvious implication and it’s entirely unclear what you “don’t believe” to people that have actually read the full article.

It seems to me that you can’t conclude that speeding causes accidents from these statistics. If people speed 30% of the time, then accidents will involve speeding 30% of the time if speeding doesn’t influence the risk at all. I would also expect the amount of speeding to matter a lot.

You are improving your productivity by 'doing something else', such as 'walking for several hours in the forest'.

Banging your head against a problem for several hours while not making any progress is frustrating. Not because you are 'unproductive' in the sense of producing value for your employer or customers, but because you are 'unproductive' in the sense of not achieving the progress you desire.

Thus we want to improve our productivity. Not because we need to be productive in a capitalist sense, but because we want to be productive to have the feeling of achieving something.

Whether increasing your productivity comes in the form of going for a walk or getting rid of distractions doesn't change that.

Finding a $20 bill on Times Square

Indeed, because I'm not arguing any position in the debate, but offering an observation whose truthfulness anyone can judge on their own.

The parent, on the other hand, was responding to someone in an attempt to prove them wrong. By not saying anything that engaged with what the grandparent said, they failed at that.

So I know what I am, but what are you?

Your comment is devoid of argument.