The idea that a 66% increase in the deficit "barely affects the momentum" is absurd reflects either your ignorance or your bad faith. Apply that logic to your personal spending and see how long it takes before you're bankrupt.

But, as is often the case, decisions that are optimal at the margin can often lead to suboptimal outcomes in aggregate.

I'm not convinced that's the case in IC fabrication, but its not impossible.

There's other options for getting around the weirdness of the Copenhagen interpretation that aren't ruled out by the data we have, but most of them are even weirder.

This is simply wrong. That is not what the term 'law' means in physics.

It's in high school chemistry textbooks. Typically in the first chapter or two. I'm assuming the audience of this site has taken at least one chemistry class in their life. Whether or not they paid attention is their own problem.

This is in contrast to, for example, classical statistical mechanics where individual particles are considered to behave deterministically, but we simply lack the ability to measure their behavior. In (the Copenhagen interpretation of) QM there is no underlying determinism at all.

You might not like this idea (it's certainly non-intuitive), but decades of experiments have shown that the alternatives are all, most likely, wrong.

Physical laws are not 'laws' in the sense that nature is required to abide by them. They are simply features of natural behavior that have been so overwhelmingly observed that we treat them as axioms.

An example of this is the 'law' of conservation of mass. Strictly speaking, nature does not follow this law. Nuclear reactions and subatomic interactions do not conserve mass. They conserve other quantities, but not mass in and of itself.

The idea that there is no ultimate law of physics is not novel or interesting. It's obvious on its face, unless you do not properly understand what 'law' means in the context of physics.

Granted, there's nothing nefarious about this, but there isn't anything necessarily nefarious about the fact that anything you get for free is being paid for somewhere else. Just potentially nefarious, if you don't know what's paying for it.

Buying anything that you expect to keep more than a year is a waste at Walmart, even if its cheaper.

That's not really true of any non-budgetary legislation (for now).

In a legal sense, that's exactly what they do. Juries are, by definition, deciders of fact, i.e. they decided what is legally true based on the evidence presented to them.

Whether legal "truth," epistemological "truth," and physical "truth" coincide is an entirely separate (and largely pointless) issue.