>Benzodiazepines don't depress respiratory function on their own,

I don't know where you're getting that. Benzos can cause respiratory depression on their own.

>You can have "most" of infinity. For example, most whole numbers are not prime, and both of those sets are (the same size of) infinite. Still, the ratio of the number of primes to the number of non-primes below a certain value is small (and tends to zero as that value tends to infinity).

You chose an interesting example, because the ratio gets smaller as the limit gets larger, but when the limit is infinity, then the ratio becomes 1:1. The number of primes is the same as the number of non-primes. They correlate on a one-to-one correspondence (bijection).

Similar to the sum of 1+2+3+4+5+6+7..... gets bigger as n increases, but when n is infinity, the sum is -1/12.

Infinity breaks a lot of our expectations.

You may still have a point about it still is possible to have the "most of infinity," whatever that means, but your example doesn't work out. Just because something holds at really big values of n doesn't mean it holds for infinity.

TLDR: scientists used to think Humans started riding horses 4000 years ago, based on art depictions. Then they found some skeletons with changes to suggest they rode horses.

It looked like this

I can make ice 1h pretty easily

Lupercalia, a fertility holiday, occurred February 15. There are some parallels to St. Valentine's day.

One of the bacchanalian drinking holidays was March 17th, which is Paddy's day.

To reduce any more redditors committing epistemic trespassing with regards to this case, the proposed case is about Sally Clark and a more detailed breakdown of the case can be found here. There were other problems with the case, including the prosecutor's fallacy and ecologic fallacy.

I find this an ironic/appropriate perspective in a sub on philosophy. My impression of undergrad intro to philosophy was that it was rife with epistemic trespassing. Some issue would be brought up for debate, and scientific or economic details would be conveniently omitted for the sake of argument. Or people would argue about an issue that could probably have been resolved if either party simply knew more about the issue.

I see it on this sub as well, plenty of people that seem very intelligent, making otherwise cogent arguments that are made completely undermined or irrelevant by deep knowledge of the subject matter.

I'm probably doing it now, since I also don't have deep knowledge of philosophy.

What if I use one hand and grab it from the bridge over the nose?

Nope.

I just browsed through a few, including topics in which I know very well. These seem to be ~hour long talks on specialized topics. They seem comparable to a keynote address one might see at a scientific seminar. The topics are fairly niche, like an upper level college course. Picture of you just walked in on a grad level lecture of some random course you didn't know existed, like "The economic impact of health law and policy."

If you want to learn more, I'd recommend something like Khan academy, as it's designed for the general audience, and have topics that are a bit more introductory or general. Also, the production quality is better at keeping you engaged. The Gresham lectures are simply that: a lecture by a professor on a particular topic. They sometimes have a little bit of "death by PowerPoint" going on.

Although some lectures are interesting to everyone, like "life in the universe", many of the lectures have a less broad audience. Like unless you are into the history of technology you might not want to listen to an hour long lecture about Victorians' conception of space and time. It's very dry.

It's unsurprising that so few people are aware of these lectures. They aren't really marketed or aimed at the general public.

It is possible to get acute poisoning from skin absorption of menthol, camphor, and eucalyptus oil, although I suspect you'd have to use a lot of it to have severe problems.

I see inflation and increase of costs of components/materials commonly mentioned as causes for increased prices.

Most companies don't base price on what it costs. They base price on what the market will bear. If it costs them $80 to make headphones that sell for $100, and manufacturing costs went up, so it now costs them $90 to make headphones, they will still sell at $100, because that price was presumably optimized for demand and their marginal costs. They just make less money. If they increase price to $110, then they will sell fewer headphones, which could decrease revenue.

If price went up purely due to inflation, then the price would have gone up comparable to inflation, and people probably wouldn't care that much.

They are increasing the price because they have discovered that they will make more revenue at $150 than $100. So if they sell 150 headphones at $100, and 120 headphones at $150, they will make more money at $150. They may also find it's cheaper to make fewer headphones.