I'm not sure, but he could be referring to the case filed against Media Matters. In any case, you're right, nobody will be forced to come back and yelling the f-word after them will likely not persuade anyone either. I think Musk has principles, but they reliably go down the pipes when he's losing it, which seems to happen regularly.
Correct, and the basic pattern persists: Someone in a larger group of people does something objectionable, and this is then attributed to one "side" in the debate (fundamental attribution error). This transgression of the "side" is then interpreted as being indicative of its intentions (ultimate attribution error). The imagined intention is then being fought with polemic and exaggerations. I'll stick with my flowers and I appreciate your correction.
This is such an instructive story in how social media messes up discourse. Yes, fine-tuned shadow banning of stuff one does not like politically is BS (point taken, Musk). But promoting a bunch of randos with personal endorsement so they run important debates is also a very questionable service to democracy (see https://www.cip.uw.edu/2023/10/20/new-elites-twitter-x-most-...). Overreacting to some of the stuff that then floats to the top on the part of advertisers and commentators is again not right, but calling this reaction "blackmail" is probably a little over the top. So what have we learnt? Make time for reading paper books and sniffing the flowers sometimes maybe?
Infrasound measurements are used for monitoring of violations of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Large atmospheric explosions reverberate around the whole planet bouncing back and forth between the ground and wind shears or temperature inversions in the Stratosphere. At shorter ranges, this might also happen in the audible spectrum. Fascinating stuff: https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/verification-regime
One thing they struggled with was ballast. If you plan on carrying 100+ metric tons, what do you do once you're done? Suck up the nearest lake maybe and dump it back at base when you load your next cargo? Now this restricts your use cases. Not that many lakes people wanna part with in Africa...
The long answer to your question can be found in Pinker's "Blank Slate". In a nutshell: the nature/nurture discussion went off the rails after WWII. 'Scientific' racism and eugenics had culminated in the Holocaust. One generation later (i.e. 60s and 70s), a strand called "radical science" had emerged (in the US) that was into deconstruction of ideas. They creatively came up with the assertion than any notion of human nature was the bedrock of racism and eugenics.
When Wilson published "Sociobiology" and mainly talked about non-human animals, they lost their shit completely. All of research, science, and academia, they asserted, was more a negotiation of power distributions than an honest attempt to make sense of the universe. The most aggressive tactic in that sphere was research on the nature of humans. Another generation later (90s), some of those "radical scientists" had secured tenure and made it their gig to teach creative deconstruction and cancel culture to students (yes, for real in the 90s). Pinker's book is from 2002, but you know the rest of the story.
Legacy papers are very popular these days in econ, history, and political science. I don't have the time to dive deep into this one, but spatial identification of long-term causal effects is prone to errors. Specifically, the error terms in regression specifications capture unexplained variance that can be very persistent over long periods of time. These errors can also be spatially correlated across treated observations: https://voxeu.org/article/standard-errors-persistence
For a long time, the scholarly consensus was that you are born with a fixed number of neurons and then start losing them over your lifetime. Now there is good evidence of adult neurogenesis and it seems to be linked to endurance exercise, such as walking. These links can be a starting point for reading up on it:
Please look at the VAERS data yourself: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html. The combined number of adverse reactions for all vaccines under the sun in 2019 is 48,444. The same number in '21 is 316,929. The difference is due to COVID-19 vaccines. I'm getting it, because the benefits outweigh the risks, but let's be real about both sides of the equation.