anindefinitearticle
Bystanders have a duty to step in.
Michael Moore called Trump a Molotov Cocktail in 2016.
Project 2025 is going to reshape the federal government. It is structured as a new constitution. It defines the roles and checks/balances of various government agencies at greater specificity than the constitution.
We need to produce a progressive counter constitution that promises something better.
Project 2025 is a specific deal with America.
We need a better offer, and the people need to trust that the person running will enact it.
Kamala isn't "getting the wrong ice cream flavor" compared to Trump.
She is still genocide, racism, incarceration, transphobia and the rest which you call Trump.
She just sugarcoats it.
The sugarcoating does make it palatable, but a palatable slavery to the rich is still a slavery to the rich.
I don't want a country run by a few guys getting rich off of bombing and incarcerating.
I didn't do it, but I respect holding back in this election to demand a better option in the next one.
I hear the next election will be the most important and pivotal ever!
I hope the choices won't be corpo trash and fascist dictator.
... My actions of voting Harris? My actions of working to get others to vote?
It's time to build a real alternative to America's legacy of settler-colonialism, starting at a local level.
After the French Revolution, they arranged the seats in the legislature with the most progressive on the left, and the most conservative on the right.
This left-right axis is often still used in modern politics.
On the American politics version of this spectrum, "liberal" defines those in the center who are in the middle and who accept whatever they are given. Leftist progressives fight for a better future.
What's he gunna do with Cheney's bunker under 1 Observatory?
He can spy on everyone's couches at once!
He paid for Ukraine's StarLink connections that he shuts off when Musk feels like it, and the incoming president who will shut off aid when Musk feels like it.
Ok, one side says it with actions, but the other says it with actions and words.
That sounds like one side being honest.
Drillin' Joe was sure acting like it was a hoax!
I voted Kamala, but I understand sitting out.
It was the promise that he could be negotiated to the left.
Instead Joe gave us a country producing the most oil and gas in world history, no movement on healthcare, etc.
The weather is going crazy because of the increase in fossil fuels Biden presided over.
He broke the deal that he could be brought left on economic/environmental/medical issues.
Kamala promised more of the same.
How can you expect anyone to trust the same deal from the VP that the P didn't make good on?
Joe didn't deliver, and Kamala didn't promise anything new.
Four more years of wildfire.
rocket ships that land within 12 inches on the moon of where they wanted to land
From the formation of the CMB we know that the whole universe was a hot and dense plasma that cooled and became transparent.
Are you proposing that these galaxies existed before and external to the CMB plasma ball "big bang" that we came from?
As in, a bunch of matter appears inside of a pre-existing universe as a local big bang, whose galaxies spread out amongst preexisting galaxies from older big bang events?
Then you propose that matter which has been hoarded by black holes may be the source of the matter in subsequent big bangs, to achieve a steady state.
I like the idea you are proposing.
My biggest question is: why didn't our "bang" blow all of the older generation of galaxies away from it such that we would never see them? My understanding is that spacetime itself is what expands / inflates in λcdm. It does so faster than the speed of light such that there is material in our universe from which light will never reach us. It's very hard to see things outside of a universe that expands faster than the light we use to observe it. It's spacetime itself that's expanding, not just the objects moving apart.
But, MOND is MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, and currently doesn't work with Einstein/GR... at all! So, if MOND is right maybe we should expect a different mechanism than Einstein expansion.
Most likely we just don't understand what stars and nebula looked like or how they formed back before metals existed and so we don't know how bright these galaxies should be to begin with because we don't know how stars work without metal. The assumption in the paper is irresponsibly invalid, we can't just assume that stars back then followed the same patterns as stars do now. Stars form from nebulae because metals condense out and coalesem creating nucleation sites for mass accretion. Earlier generations of stars would need to rely on different formation mechanisms, and likely had a different size and brightness distribution. We won't understand these early stars and galaxies until we've been looking at them for at least a decade.