It's a very good question. It looks like it was mainly failures to generate a result within a predetermined time. Some of the failures were due to cryostat hardware failures (a fridge went out during a NIST campus closure); some due to fiber + interferometer polarization drifts; and so on. It also appears that [perhaps?] a few of the misses are due to latencies in the timetaggers to record a common timebase. I can't quite tell from the arXived version of the paper: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2411.052...

All in all, it's a marvelously good overview of the impressive experiment!

It's also happening tomorrow, according to the summary. Hmmmmmmm...

Hm. Perhaps this is a use of 'grifter' I wasn't aware of.

How is Geerling a "grifter"?

So you're saying that neither of the groups of people (one of which includes you) keep their eyes on the road. This directly contradicts your previous message. Cute.

Eyeline != focus. You're not keeping your eyes on the road.

You're asking the wrong question, you should be asking things more along the lines of:

"When is BO going to send humans to space for more than a few minutes?"
"When is blue origin going to send humans to orbit?"
"When is blue origin going to rendezvous and dock with a space station or other craft?"

For now, they've got an expensive carnival ride.

It's What Plants Crave

There's always money in the banana stand, Michael.

And... who's going to verify/certify/ensure that those appliances are actually as energy efficient as claimed?

Consumer Reports?

Who says they are the only candidate? The government has the NHTSA, while the private sector has the more rigorous IIHS. UL has done this kind

Speaking of UL... you realize that they are one of those who does the testing under the EngeryStar program, right? ex: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ul.com%2Fservices%2Fen...

If the program goes away tomorrow, no doubt they'd simply close their doors and never test energy efficiency again.

I'm pretty sure it's the division between the "shut up and calculate" point of view, and the one which seeks to /explain/ the rules for the calculations.
Quantum *mechanics* is pretty well accepted: it works under a great many circumstances!
It's also reviled as an *explanation*: it's hard to generalize the rules, and interpreting them in any palatable way (as, for example, explaining what is an observer and what it means to make an observation) is apparently impossible. Thus the enduring presence of people who are bringing back objections that the "shut up and calculate" response is a poor one. See, e.g. Carroll, Barandes, et alia.
Few physicists are happy with the Copenhagen interpretation, for the reason you mentioned and for many others. However, I note that you clearly have not given an alternative interpretation.

Let's keep going! ;-)

"is." is not a verb; "is" is a verb.

You've put quotation marks around the period at the end of your sentence. You've also inconsistently punctuated "M.D." and "MBA", and have chosen to spell out "O.K." in your post subject.
Introspection is difficult!

Oh, those efficient Germans, always leaving out letters.