I mean, it doesn’t have to relate to a particle. Lambda is also associated with a property of space itself.

The point with the LHC is, that it is very hard to find something, that you are not actively looking for. You have to at least have a certain understanding of the decay channels of the proposed particle to be able to scan the data for it. It’s the same problem they have for discovering dark matter particles.

Oh with mainstream science I meant the journalism, probably bad wording.

Yeah, but somehow mainstream science gaslit everyone into thinking, that the current model is definitely right, even though there are relevant observations, that are not explained by it. But I guess we just need a new even bigger particle accelerator and then we will definitely find dark matter particles!

It is not very reliable to use a component to build a model that has “no support from observations”.

But it has support from observations? It’s an alternative explanation for the red shifts we observe from far away sources.

ΛCDM has also problems. For example that two different methods of calculating the Hubble constant do not agree, or that the James Webb telescope found galaxies, that are too old. The latter was the motivation for the paper and gives an explanation for it, contrary to current models.

Yeah, it is not generally a good idea to just throw in more components, like here a scalar.

Well, guess what the Λ in ΛCDM is? They just put it in there to be able to fit the theory to the observation. And it’s absurd to say, that they would’ve found that in the LHC, when they also did not find dark matter particles, even though they are actively looking for those.

Does it still explain galaxy rotations? What about other cosmological data, like equation of state parameter and such?

They are aware of this and mention it already in the abstract:

It remains to be seen if the new model is consistent with the CMB power spectrum, the Big Bang nucleosynthesis of light elements, and other critical observations.

It’s quite common for research groups to do this, because their work is quite complex and takes time. They proved that their approach might have some merit and now other groups can help them going forward with it.

Yeah, but farmers have a powerful lobby and they produce our food. So they got some power behind their words.

These jobs do not pay well, so they already struggle to find anyone to work those.

Jobs heavily dominated by women are not well-paying jobs, so no one cares. Are there even countries that have quota for women outside of executive positions and politics?

To be fair, men will lose privileges. Before they had to compete only with other men for that juicy executive position. Now they also face women, lowering their chance to get the job. That’s just one example and it is absolutely necessary for this to happen.

As a scientist, it is tremendously important for us, that people trust our science. We saw, what happens, if enough neglect science with Covid and now climate change. Scientists like her, who stray from their area of expertise and report false facts, just damage our reputation. I mean, you seem to have a pretty bad opinion of scientists.
Of course people can make mistakes. That’s actually a fundamental principle of science to be wrong a lot. It’s how you handle these mistakes, that matters. Adapt your views to the new information, do not stick to wrong facts, because you don’t like to admit, that you were wrong.
The problem with people like her is, that they gain trust by making videos about topics, where they are very knowledgeable. Then they use this trust for other content and they do not put any disclaimer about that in it. So people who watch it and are not knowledgeable in the topic of the video think, that they will get the same quality. But they don’t. We have enough misinformation swirling around, we don’t need more published by reputable persons.
You write yourself, that she describes stuff in a way, that you can understand it. But how do you judge, if she explains a topic correctly according to the current state of science, if you have no clue about it yourself? She could just bullshit you on every video without you knowing.

Her video on nuclear reactors was awful. She just neglected facts, that didn’t fit her narrative.

I would say, that one of the biggest flaws of democracy is, that you have an election period of a few years. Every project, that will pay of later than these few years will not get you reelected. That incentivizes short term over long term projects. Why build a bridge, that takes 10 years to build, if you can use the money to pay out higher pensions during your term? Why try to fix the demographic problem, if that will only hit the country after your term? Why improve education, if the students, that profit from that are not eligible to vote in the next election?

Did you follow the last elections in the Netherlands? A right populist party with only 1 member just won it and one of his policies is to change, that the law is equal for everyone.
All of these countries have right-wing populist movements. In Sweden it’s the Sweden Democrats, who are second in polls. Finland also just elected a right-wing government including the right populist party Finns. Every time right-wing governments come into power, that include far right parties, they slowly chip away at the base of democracy: electing judges, that share their views, weakening the balance of power and so on.
I mean, Germany tried to learn from the time of national socialism to strengthen it against the takeover of anti-democratic parties. Yet, German democracy is still vulnerable if the AfD comes into power.

Then no true democracy according to your definition exists.
I do not have a better suggestion.

There is no full democracy, that can’t be attacked by fascists, if they get elected. There are enough examples for this in the world. Democracy needs the support of the citizens or it will not work. It is not a self-sufficient system.

Who spouts this strawman nonsene? You are building it, because apparently your drug of choice is attacked in your interpretation. The psychosis was diagnosed and the clinical manifestation of it is completely different from a normal weed trip. People should definitely know, that this can happen, what the chances are, that higher THC content is riskier and what predispositions could feed into it. The same holds true for other drugs. You know, so that consumers can make informed choices about the stuff they consume.

If you get a psychosis because of it, yes. Not if you just exhibit the normal effects of the drug you took. Your gotcha argument does not work.

No, because a psychosis is not the same as a drug trip.

Weed increases risk for psychosis. Just because it did not happen to you or anyone you know isn’t relevant here. The risk seems to be higher for higher THC content.

They did in the beginning for a limited amount of time: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67051292 They relented to trickling some food and water thorugh because of international pressure.