You ARE able to solve simple angle problems, right /sci/?

Convince me to continue on and get a math phd. I can find plenty of shit online that says don't. Why should I?

OH N-

how does light pollution work

How important was his work?

Continental drift is a female theory. As we know, women are notoriously poor logical thinkers and have no place in science.

Let's review some of the evidence for the expanding Earth:

1. The continents fit together perfectly, as if the Earth's radius used to be smaller in the past.
2. The ocean floor is billions of years younger than the Earth's land.
3. What the fuck is subduction? Obviously made up.
4. Thermal expansion of the Earth is consistent with global warming and rising sea levels.
5. Creatures the size of dinosaurs are biologically impossible unless Earth's gravity was lower in the past.
6. Supernovas. Stars grow larger and eventually explode, consistent with mass accumulation.
7. Aetherial sinkholes explain the force of gravity. (General relativity is bullshit.)
8. Given the lifecycle of stars, it makes no sense that the most commonly found stars, red dwarfs, are also supposedly the oldest. Rather, we would expect to see smaller stars most frequently, and larger stars less frequently since stars can only grow so large before they explode. Speaking of explosions....
9. The asteroid belt is consistent with an exploded planet between Mars and Jupiter. This is an expected outcome of planet expansion.

All of which brings me to my final conclusion:
10. The Earth is going to explode, probably pretty soon. This explains Elon Musk's desperation to get to Mars.

Discuss.

Why are prions become more of a problem than before?

I want to cure sleeping somehow what to do and where to start...

Well?

I recall someone either on /sci/ or some other board once mentioning that assuming AI will start massively increasing in intelligence once it hits human level is nonsensical because humans certainly don't massively increase in intelligence, but is that really true? Are not the things that stop humans from doing the same being:
A) We don't even fully understand our own brains
B) Even if we did fully understand said brains, changing them to be more intelligent isn't as simple as just willing it to be
But wouldn't a human-level AI, especially one that reached its state through recursive self-improvement, be exempt from possibly both of those? For A) since the AI is technically the thing that made itself intelligent (in a recursive self-improvement scenario), unlike evolution and random chance for humans, it starts off with a greater understanding of itself than any human does, and for B) it's far easier to modify and experiment with a computer program than the human brain. Changing code is far easier than precisely manipulating neurons, even if you fully understood what you were doing. So why do people insist that an AI would be incapable of hard takeoff because we ourselves are innately incapable of it?

pic unrelated and definitely not me