A_A

Yes i agree that, doing physics in a very well controlled laboratory, physicist can measure things accurately.
Unfortunately we don't have a laboratory big enough to reproduce a big bang and study it in a controlled fashion. So, in cosmology, measurement are difficult and not so precise 😋.

Delusional narcissist can't self criticize.

That was the very last one working russian tank 🤣

indeed ... at the point where trade essentially stops, the exact tariff percentage becomes irrelevant.

With +154% USA's tariffs → on 1st degree a $10.00 flags+hats package is now $25.40 ... But on 2nd degree, the hat's crowd will cost much more to the decaying USA.

in about 6h and 20 minutes from now since Beijing is in UTC +8.00

i love Douglas Adam's trilogy in five books as well 😁

Yes i agree with you that, of course, physicists working on this have to be well aware of general relativity. Still, there is this linear relationship that bothers me for the Hubble parameter.

What two parameters ?

i should have put more effort in understanding before writing my comment ... and this confusion about "two parameters" is nothing of importance for what i try to say in that comment. Sorry if you don't see anything interesting in what i said.

Suppose we come to establish that the expansion rate accelerated from 68 to 73 km per second / Mpc (in the lapse of, say, 80% the ~14 B. years age of U.) if this is so, so be it. Why oppose it ?
Or, if for the same period, we have two different rates ... this is not acceleration. This is two methods yielding different results for what is supposed to be one sigle thing. So, one of the 2 methods doesn't measure exactly the same thing as the other ... whatever.

Obviously, observation and measurement have to be the basis for any hypothesis and for any explanation proposals. So, we should not say : "since we have no explanation, there should not be acceleration of the expansion". - - But rather we should say : "since there is acceleration of the expansion, we should build some theoretical models around this reality".

Anyway, you probably already know all of this.

i agree with you that here, the difference between 68 and 73 seems very small.

For me, it's even amazing that they get, for the CBM, any number even close to the same order of magnitude, given that it seems like a linear division of speed of light divided by light travel distance at the age of the universe, is the value for Hubble parameter (H)*_ at CBM.

That seems in contradiction to the fact that, when adding relativistic velocities (and incrementally up to the speed of light !), linear addition is out of question and general relativity has to be used.

This is just one of the apparent difficulties and obviously there are much more and harder challenges than this one.

_*(... and is the age of the universe defined or measured by other means than simply :
Δt = 1/H ... ? That can't be : since we have 2 parameters to evaluate, so, we need 2 independent experimental measurement variables. )

TLDR : The author concludes he doesn't know after a long detour arguing with himself that we are somewhat irreplaceable.

(...) labor can be immiserated and wages are driven to zero (...)

i like this part :

There’s no specific reason why the reported Chain-of-Thought must accurately reflect the true reasoning process; there might even be circumstances where a model actively hides aspects of its thought process from the user.