The true, short answer that ELI5 won't actually let you give is "nobody knows".

Consciousness is a mystery, we don't even know what it actually is let alone how it works. It's one of the areas that is still open to a multitude of spiritual interpretations. And if it is merely an emergent phenomena of bio-electric interactions between brain cells, which is what one might be tempted to think scientifically, then I think this leads to a big question of what other interactions could also give rise to some form of consciousness (albeit an experience that we may not even recognise as consciousness yet).

And to what degree do the electrical interactions in computers give rise to a form of consciousness? Again, it may not be a human-level, free-will having, life-enjoying experience, but when you look at very simple creatures driven mostly by instinct and not decision making, I think it's silly to suggest they aren't conscious, yet I also think their experience of their conscious existence is probably extremely dissimilar to our own. Go several steps down that rung and maybe you get to computers and I wonder where the concept of "consciousness" ceases to exist, if indeed it ever does at all.

Does it apply to gravitational interactions? Nuclear interactions? Does any of this even really matter?

They're not just going to find anyone actually good to head the FAA and it won't change any of the FAA's policies either way.

I believe India and Pakistan are the best places to get rice if you want to avoid these things. Rice from China, the US (maybe not california?) and Bangladesh is the worst.

This is just what I've heard.

I don't know about Dying Light but most instances of zombie fiction where the zombie disease is caused by a variant of rabies, it's usually taken to be a novel strain of rabies that DOES cause excessively aggressive behaviour in it's hosts. It would seem kinda silly to just say "it's rabies" because we have rabies in the real world and we don't (yet) have a zombie apocalypse.

Looking out into space is like looking back in time. Look 100 million light years away and you'll see what was happening over there 100 million years ago. Well, if you look far enough, you'll see what was happening 13.8 billion years ago. But at that point, it's just an opaque mass of radiation that we can't "see through" because this represents the birth of the universe, the big bang. What was happening 13.8 billion years ago, no matter which direction you look, was that the universe was being born. This is why it's a "ring".

This is called the observable universe and to be clear, I'm pretty sure current technology does not allow us to look that far. But this is what you would see.

As for what is "outside" it, our current understanding of physics can only extrapolate back to 1 planck time after the big bang. What was going on before that, in the moment of the big bang and any hypothetical "before", nobody can tell you. It's a singularity, it's where mathematical values reach infinity, and we don't really understand what happens when values reach infinity in real life. It's why people say we don't know what happens "inside" a black hole, it's the same problem.

Ultimately your question is one and the same as "what was before the big bang". My personal preferred idea is that space and time itself didn't exist before the big bang, therefore the very concept of "before" the big bang is nonsensical. So then what is "outside the universe", as far as I'm concerned it may well be a nothing beyond what you can even comprehend, a "place" in which space and time simply doesn't exist. Or it could be a gazillion pink elephants having a tea party. It's likely we will never know for sure.

As far as why they're a danger to humans, they're mammals. They also tend to be susceptible to disease because they are very social mammals that live in large groups with minimal... social distancing. They and their bodily excretions are in relatively frequent contact with humans. This is why the diseases they do incubate as others have said are more readily spread to humans.

Scientists have discovered how to plant a tree.

If I am reading the title of this thread right, the existence of a *single* young individual with alzheimers is about to "overturn" the idea that alzheimers is "rare" in young people?

Am I supposed to take this article seriously?

1. even if you start with the same animal, the random processes that make up evolution are vanishingly unlikely to produce the exact same end result twice when it's working with such an immense thing as the genetic code.
2. Other animals may well move in to occupy the niche that D occupied, if indeed the niche itself even exists any more (which it may well do again at some point).
3. C rarely continues to exist unchanged. There are some animals we think of as ancient but even those are rarely the exact same as they were 50 million years ago and even aside from that in the vast majority of cases C simply no longer exists in any form. I mean say humans went extinct next week. We look back to our last common ancestors with chimps: Gone. With gorillas? Gone. With other primates? Gone. I doubt there is a single extant animal (or any other kind of life) we can directly trace our lineage back to to give humans "another try" 5 billion years down the line. The same is probably true of most animals.

So immuno-suppressants supress the immune system. Got it.

As people have said it doesn't compound, because stable orbits are stable. If it slows it down which means the opposite side of the orbit might change by like 50m closer to the sun, as he said negligable but that doesn't mean it starts spiralling towards the sun at 50m per year because as it falls closer to the sun it also gains speed, which causes it to fly back out again to the original distance when it gets back to the same point in it's orbit. The orbit is still stable, simply elliptical (which the earths orbit already is by significantly more than 50m).

What are the scientifically proven deleterious effects of each.