NougatRillettes

This is very cool!

The likely implied thought here is that it would be linked to the Covid vaccines. However, I believe the most likely explanation is provided by this citation:

> To find out how many deaths actually occurred during the last two decades among FIFA players (2001-2020), we used Wikipedia - "List of association footballers who died while playing". To know how many cases occurred in 2021, we used the list collected by us in "Real-Time News" (which includes the cases noted in Wikipedia for 2021).

There is an obvious sampling bias, and they likely collected much more cases for 2021 than for other years. Looking at mortality statistics by cause at nation level would be much more rigorous.

My understanding of it after a quick read of the paper: you want to make a suction cup. The usual way is with a solid cup (think plastic) with a softer rubber-like ring around it. Near the ring, you will have atmospheric pressure (high) outside, and vacuum pressure (low) inside, so if the ring doesn't make perfect contact with the surface, some air is going to come in and ruin you vacuum. What they are doing is that they are rotating a bit of water in the suction cup, which because of centrifugal force will come close to the suction cup frontier in a ring-like shape. This water ring will -- thanks to fluid mechanics black magic -- have a different pressure at its exterior and its interior. Its interior pressure will necessarily be the same as the vacuum, and you can make it so that the pressure outside is the same as the atmospheric pressure, hence, according to this paper, if the rubber ring fails to make hermetic contact, air won't come in because at the frontier of the cup, the pressure is the same both outside (atmosphere) and inside (exterior of the water ring).

This has many of the red flags for "technological" development that won't withstand scientific scrutiny.

Thanks for your comments! I don't see how what is discussed here conflicts with the notation I introduced into the post, do you still believe there is a soundness issue in what I have written?

Thanks for your comment (and thanks to everyone who answered below). I have been way too many times in the same situation where someone says something is "trivial" or "easy" so I completely get your point and will try not to make the same mistake for the next posts.

Regarding your question, I think the answers you have had are on point!

I am neither a lawyer nor a US citizen, but I think the ruling was not on "whether or not discrimination took place", but rather on "if such discrimination had taken place, would the 1st Amendment of the constitution have allowed it as 'editorial freedom'".