"This means that the bottom 10 drivers were responsible for the remaining 17, making them nearly twice as likely to crash."

While what you say may well be true, you also have to account for being mid pack, especially on the first lap, means you are much more likely to get tangled up in another drivers error, or just both go for the same space. Also, if you happen to be one of the front runners coming through the midfield, its likely that you will face far less active defending because the defending driver knows its going to happen, and fighting it will just cost them time. A mid field driver against another mid field car are actually racing for position, so its worth extra risks to defend.

"Not unless there's only one way to make a ribosome ... which too is a provably ridiculous and incorrect assertion."

But there may have been an optimal ribosome for the conditions at the time, and even in disparate populations that one optimal (or a close enough version of it, the word "nearly" is doing a lot of work in your post) could have displaced all other versions, until the initially separate populations merged and created the consistency in origin we see today.

"These are all at the same level of likelihood."

I disagree, we know that billionaire's exist, so that is at least a non zero level of likely. AFAIK, there is no documented case of monkeys flying out of anyone's butt, so I don't think it would be unreasonable to assign a zero level of likely to that.

"If you told me that eating strawberries will kill me and I see you eating strawberries at every meal"

I told you that eating strawberries will kill you. The fact that I could eat strawberries does not make what I told you false. It may be (to use what you are suggesting) that the rich can in fact safely eat strawberries (because, well, they are rich). That doesn't make them being harmful to you false.

"Why should I listen to a hypocrite?"

Well, perhaps because it would be in your own best interest?

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3m5qxZm_JqM

The problem that comes to mind is you will need some way to guarantee that the signal is not being influenced by an external EM field.

"all of the above which won't react negatively to the irrational and otherwise bad things humans might do to them. What's not to like?"

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that it will normalize that behavior when dealing with real humans.

"Morality is "principles of right and wrong"; animals and plants don't have right and wrong, they just act as necessary in order to survive."

You say that, but you provide no evidence to prove that assertion. There is evidence that wild animals do have exactly what you claim they don't. However, they may still just be acting in a way to ensure survival, as you suggest, but you would then have to provide some evidence that what we call kindness or evil in humans is in some way more than just acting as necessary to survive.

Try owning a dog and then tell me it doesn't understand "right and wrong".

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxkcd.com%2F1791%2F

"where they don't belong"

What does that actually mean? Its almost as if you believe there is an absolute correct that we can compare against.

I think you may be thinking of particle spin as something spinning, so it would have angular momentum, so from there you assume there is energy and its somehow conserved. But I don't think anything is actually spinning.

Also, think about what would be happening if they were actually spinning, like a wheel. If you have a spinning wheel and magically split it in half perpendicular to the axis of rotation, you have the same energy in the system, the two parts still spin in the same direction, one doesn't suddenly start spinning in the other direction.

Or take the other way of looking at that. You have a pair of wheels. both spinning in opposite directions, and join the axles together.The energy doesn't cancel out, it sums and gets converted into a force twisting the axle and eventually into heat.

Don't want to pick a fight, but you were the one that invoked "extension of conservation-of-energy", so you are the one that needs to explain what that means. Not sure what other information or understanding is available without that explanation.

And in this weeks art predicting life, from the Wormhole Disco:

VARIOUS DANCERS: Hi there baby, you want to dance?

ROOSTA: [Shouts] Beeblebrox!! All these dancers! They’re robots!!

ZAPHOD: [Shouts] They’re just to make the place look crowded!! Give it some atmosphere!!

ROOSTA: [Shouts] But there aren’t any real people here at all!!

ZAPHOD: [Shouts] So what’s new?!

And as I am sure you are fully aware, below some point Digital becomes Analog as well.

Well, strictly speaking the software system was from ICL, Fujitsu then took over ICL. Anyone who know UK software in the 80's knows what a crock of shit ICL and more specifically ICL salesmen and managers were. I am not suggesting Fujitsu were blameless here, but I doubt they understood just what they had put their name on.

To quote Wiki:

"In May 1996, ICL Pathway Limited (later Fujitsu Services (Pathway) Limited) was awarded the private finance initiative contract to develop the Horizon IT system to modernize Post Office and Benefits Agency operations. The project encountered a number of delays and setbacks during development, causing the Benefits Agency to abandon it in 1999, which led to a £180 million write-off at ICL and £571 million at the Post Office. The project in large part led to reputational damage to the ICL brand, causing the renaming of the company to Fujitsu Services in April 2002, and later to just Fujitsu.