[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;528992]It would have been much more disconcerting if the simple formula for main sequence lifetime based on mass had indicated a much [i]shorter[/i] lifetime.[/quote]
While reading the article, one scenario did occur to me where such might occur - you have 2 metal-poor early-universe stars which spent their first 10 billion-plus years in low-burn-rate mode, but then merge, yielding a star whose age based on metallicity is much older than its luminosity-inferred age. A low-probability event, to be sure, but then again we are talking about stellar outliers.

[quote]Minor nit-pick: The star HD 140283 is almost certainly not a "first-generation" (Population III) star, but a second (Population II). First-generation stars are thought to have had zero to very little metal, since standard cosmology indicates no elements beyond lithium existed before there were stars. No Population III stars are known to have been observed, but there are some possible candidate stars with extremely low metal content. Some Population III stars might have acquired heavier elements from [i]other[/i] Population III stars going supernova. A lot of them are theorized as having been very massive, so they lived fast and died young.[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected!

[QUOTE=ewmayer;529018]<snip>
While reading the article, one scenario did occur to me where such might occur - you have 2 metal-poor early-universe stars which spent their first 10 billion-plus years in low-burn-rate mode, but then merge, yielding a star whose age based on metallicity is much older than its luminosity-inferred age. A low-probability event, to be sure, but then again we are talking about stellar outliers.
<snip>[/QUOTE]Stellar collisions are certainly possible. In a densely packed region like a globular cluster, it seems the likeliest explanation for an odd duck called a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_straggler]Blue straggler[/url], which embodies the idea, "Everything old is new again."

In regions [i]not[/i] densely packed with stars, merged stars are probably rare birds indeed.

The last kind of boa you'd wear...
 

[url=https://apnews.com/d0db58c70f66403f921eb0f8ae5e2b94]Indiana woman found dead with 8-foot python around her neck[/url]

[url=https://apnews.com/1962978e8db043648de8e8467f413e3d]Autopsy shows 8-foot python fatally strangled Indiana woman[/url]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;529435][URL="https://apnews.com/d0db58c70f66403f921eb0f8ae5e2b94"]Indiana woman found dead with 8-foot python around her neck[/URL]

[URL="https://apnews.com/1962978e8db043648de8e8467f413e3d"]Autopsy shows 8-foot python fatally strangled Indiana woman[/URL][/QUOTE]
Great. Another method documented for the dangerously depressed: suicide by snake, constrictor mode, as opposed to venom mode.

Ghost & touch screen
 

Remember how computers were going to make us more productive and our lives easier?
One of my laptops has had for years, odd lighter semicircular areas, that moved about the screen edge from time to time. Then they became more numerous. Lately they started flashing. One at a time at first, then they joined in a sort of rapid chorus. The touchpad and then the keyboard became unusable. For a couple of days I could only use it remotely. Then I found this:
[URL]https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-windows_install/ghostly-bubbles-flashing-since-windows-10/18e828b0-6ba1-4687-966e-018a32fd50a7#[/URL]
Disabled the touch screen (that I never used anyway, because I don't like looking at fingerprints on the screen). The &quot;bubbles&quot; disappeared, and keyboard and touch pad function were restored. Apparently the touchscreen aged to the point it was detecting its own bezel as touches. This was on a Dell that shipped with Windows 10 and did not have a mouse installed or any touch screen use. And it's less than 3 years old. (Dell Inspiron 15 5567, that also had a complete fan failure within months of purchase. It's making my Win7 10 year old broken-hinges HP laptop look good.)

Mile marker madness
 

In the US we have something called the Interstate Highway System. This was started back in the 1950s and consists of limited access high speed four lane highways. For a long time they had mile markers (nominally) a mile apart. At some point it was decided that it would be useful to have them more closely spaced, at 0.2 mile intervals, for people to read and report when calling in an accident when an ambulance is needed or police response needed. So I was driving westbound on a stretch of I90/94 in Wisconsin where both the old and new markers are present. Right side of the road, mile markers; left side of the road, 0.2-mile interval markers. I noticed they did not match. For example, 82 on the right, across from 81.8 on the left. Then I noticed that they weren't always located opposite each other. At the legal 70 mph speed limit, nearest markers were offset by up to +/- 2 seconds (~ +-205 feet or +/-0.039 miles) from each other. So the maximum discrepancy in marking was nearly 1/4 mile from one shoulder to the other. These offsets were apparently not the result of avoiding on-ramps and off-ramps, and occurred also miles from any entrances or exits.
Returning a couple of days later, I noticed the eastbound had much less of an issue; where both were present, nearest-marker numbers matched, and placement offsets were less.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_location_marker#United_States[/URL]
If the 0.2 mile markers were placed with typical cellphone gps accuracy, their location would be good to about 16 feet (0.003 miles, about 80 times smaller than the observed marker discrepancy). [URL]https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/[/URL]
If an unaware motorist reports the right-side of the road location, and the responding officer is already having a bad day, will the motorist be in trouble?

[QUOTE=kriesel;531420]<snip>
If an unaware motorist reports the right-side of the road location, and the responding officer is already having a bad day, will the motorist be in trouble?[/QUOTE]
From a cursory search, it appears that you should make contact with the Executive Secretariat of the [url=https://www.fhwa.dot.gov]Federal Highway Administration[/url], Tammi S Williams

202-366-6426 phone

[email]execsecretariat.fhwa@fhwa.dot.gov[/email] email

(and yes, the word "dot" is part of the address)

[QUOTE=kriesel;531420]In the US we have something called the Interstate Highway System. This was started back in the 1950s and consists of limited access high speed four lane highways. For a long time they had mile markers (nominally) a mile apart.[/QUOTE]
Colorado has a 419.99 mile marker:
[url]https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/41999-mile-marker[/url]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;531422]From a cursory search, it appears that you should make contact with the Executive Secretariat of the [URL="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov"]Federal Highway Administration[/URL], Tammi S Williams

202-366-6426 phone

[EMAIL="execsecretariat.fhwa@fhwa.dot.gov"]execsecretariat.fhwa@fhwa.dot.gov[/EMAIL] email

(and yes, the word "dot" is part of the address)[/QUOTE]
Wow, do you think the ones on the right side of the road are Federal, and the ones on the left are state-owned? I thought from reading [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_location_marker#United_States[/url] that they were all from the state. The same numbering is used for exits.

[url]https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-exits/default.aspx[/url]

Ken, are you sure the marker-mismatches you are seeing aren't due to relativistic effects? You might consider slowing down a smidge. :)

[QUOTE=kriesel;531428]Wow, do you think the ones on the right side of the road are Federal, and the ones on the left are state-owned? I thought from reading [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_location_marker#United_States[/url] that they were all from the state.
<snip>[/quote]
I guess the mile markers in Wisconsin are indeed a Wisconsin thing, so you should ask the Wisconsin highway folks.

Mile markers start with (in this case) the point at which the interstate enters Wisconsin at its western border, and the mile numbers increase as you head east. Hmm. According to my old road atlas, Interstates 90 and 94 join at Tomah, where their mile markers differ by about 100 miles. Between Tomah and where they diverge near Madison, their concurrent route uses I-90 mile markers. After they diverge near Madison, I-94 resumes its original mile marker count.

It's curious that the problem seems to be worse with westbound lanes. It would be interesting to know whether the east- and westbound markers were done by different crews, or at different times. Perhaps there was a surveying error, or a systemic surveying problem, that affected only the westbound lanes.

I suppose it's also possible that somebody lost count while they were placing signs. Or a place got skipped when they were planting them. But that sort of error should be easy to spot -- either no sign where there should be one, a skip in marker numbers, or a repeated marker number.

I know -- it was Coriolis forces
:grin: