That’s 41 degrees for everyone who doesn’t measure things in bird per gun.

No one’s asking nor wondering why you find looking at things in the sky beautiful.

They’re asking why you’re ascribing meaning to an arbitrary number of days. Months aren’t subjective, they’re arbitrary.

What to know about blue supermoons:

1. They literally mean nothing.
2. The change is imperceptible to everyone.
3. Expect useless clickbait slop about it until it passes.

Why not reformat and use a more open filesystem?

You’d get less issues too!

Looking back at history, it would lead to more propaganda and more support for going to war.

A population getting attacked only leads to that population wanting to an us vs them mentality and emotional knee-jerk reactions over rational responses.

Because: “The dose makes the poison”.

In other words, any chemical—even water and oxygen—can be toxic if too much is ingested or absorbed into the body. The toxicity of a specific substance depends on a variety of factors, including how much of the substance a person is exposed to, how they are exposed, and for how long.

For anyone downvoting this who didn’t understand the reference:

Russia is saying that they’re the ones shooting down their own planes, because they don’t want to admit that Ukraine has the capability to shoot down their planes.

Your question:

what things did the LHC discover that have real practical applications right now other than validating some hypothesis

Is really multiple questions:

1. Is doing fundamental research with no application in mind useful?

2. Has the LHC led to practical applications usable today

The answer to question 1 is yes.

There’s different types of research programs made to target different goals. Some aim for short or medium term applications, and others are just pure fundamental research.

Just because pure research doesn’t have an application in mind, doesn’t mean it’s not useful. The application isn’t the goal, the expansion of our knowledge base is. Everyone who ever thought up of an application for something did so based on their own knowledge base. If the knowledge base never expands, then we run out of applications to think up. This is why pure research is useful.

And all of history supports this:

• The discovers of rays shooting off cathode-ray-tubes in the 1800s were just doing pure research and had no idea it would lead to TVs
• particle accelerator research lead to invention of cat scans
• chemists trying to research heavier elements leading to the discovery of nuclear fission, leading to nuclear power
• electrolysis research lead to the invention of lead (and rechargeable) batteries
• etc…

The answer to question 2 is also yes:

The obvious ones are:

• improved manufacturing processes
• improved supercooled superconductors
• improved large scale vacuum chambers
• Improved data processing
• Trained a new cohort of experienced scientists/engineers/workers/etc (who can now work on new projects outside of the LHC)