I don't believe so, unless the object had such a powerful telescope it could image Hubble itself in high definition and literally see where it was pointing, which would require an absurdly large lens. A telescope like Hubble absorbing light is purely passive, it doesn't emit anything "back" that would tell the observed object it is being observed.
I would counter that the "modern" Penn Station (at least prior to the recent projects) is worse at that "fast and safely" objective. It's much harder to navigate a maze of tunnels than to navigate a large, open station headhouse with far fewer obstacles between you and the track or exit you're trying to reach.
With the new Moynihan Train Hall, built in the same style as the original Penn Station, I can simply enter from the street and walk in a straight line to the escalator down to a specific track. No more maze of tunnels (getting to the subway is another matter).
Lots of other stations built in the same style in the same period remain well-preserved and functional- Grand Central in the same city, opened 3 years later, being a prime example.
There's a difference between concluding that scientific research is wrong and concluding that it is fraudulent. The latter is a claim about the character of the scientist involved, alleging them to have taken unethical if not illegal action. If that is provably false then it can certainly rise to the level of defamation.
It may or may not be illegal (it probably would be in the case of fraudulently obtained grant funding), but academic fraud is career-ending. It is a very serious accusation. Besides, you are completely misunderstanding how defamation works. Defamation does not require that an allegation of a crime. Heck, there's even a term for this kind of thing: defamation of character.
Indeed. It seems fraud is table stakes at this point.
Typically however, climate 'scientists' abstract their fraud. They take raw data, fit it to their 'model', and then produce a conclusion. Sometimes they get over zealous, and manipulate the raw data, like the NOAA was caught doing.
Streets may not have gotten wider in a given city/town since then, but there's been a lot of population growth and development in that time in the sunbelt where urban planning has favored very wide roads. So even if roads themselves aren't getting wider, people have been moving to places where roads are wide.
This. I was recently in Phoenix for a meeting and was struck by the state of the roads there. Lots of paint on the roads bike lines on 4 or 6 lane 45 mph streets where lots of folks were doing 55+. I class myself as someone who will bike a lot of places in Seattle but I didn't see a single road (i'm sure there are some somewhere there) that I'd be willing to ride in Phoenix.
That may be true, but it's worth noting that the length of a "generation" of stars varies wildly depending on the type of star. Stars like our Sun might only live 10 billion years or so, but red dwarfs live 100 billion years or more so we could presumably live around them long after all the Sun-like stars have burned out.
If you have a bunch of matter (dead stars, planets, interstellar dust) is there some fundamental reason this can't be dumped into accretion disks, etc. in an energy-positive way?
Previous company I worked at had a policy that you needed to include a photo of yourself with the current date written with any PW reset request, but of course that doesn't work as well at a 2000 person company as at a 100 person startup where IT knows everyone's face.
Plus that's still vulnerable to googling photos of the employee you're impersonating and photoshopping a piece of paper with the date.
