SpicyAnt

Fascist as in the US actively supporting and financing terrorism in countries it wants control over, historically.

Isn't this a conspiracy theory? I think that the official position of the US is that they are not financing terrorists, and many of their military actions have been performed to defend citizens from their ruler's human rights violations. Isn't the Cuban embargo officially there to protect the Cubans against human rights violations? I think that arguing otherwise makes one a conspiracy theorist.

I am not saying this to argue, I am trying to explain what I understand with conspiracy theory - someone who is skeptical about the official narrative, and believes that those in power will not always be transparent and honest to the public.

And I think that being suspicious has been co-opted by the right wing, yes.

I am aware of the "drain the swamp" rhetoric, that there was a QAnon, anti-vax, and other more fringe theories. But I think that this is a sub-set of conspiracy theorizing that is amplified by the media. Many conspiracy theorists are investigative journalists and critics of governments. And many conspiracy theories have ended up being true. I don't think that critical thought and skepticism is an exercise that only right-wingers should participate in.

What do you mean? Can you describe what you mean with 'fascist rulership'? Then maybe I can try.

For example... people in Mexico many people suspect that politicians have associations with drug dealers, and many believe believe that particular bureaucratic systems (such as handing out public infrastructure projects) are exploited to distribute funds in ways that benefit those in power and their friends, these people I would classify as "conspiracy theorists", and in many cases they have been correct. You think that these people will always side with fascist rulership?

I think that the distrust of governments and generally those in power is a world-wide phenomenon. But I personally don't think that it is unwarranted. Corruption, abuses of power, and conspiracies are widespread.

“In November I had received two letters from Teachers’ Pensions asking me euphemistically if I was dead,”

I am curious about how one euphemistically asks someone if they are dead. Any guess?

EDIT: Ah! After sending this answer I saw jorge's answer!! So this answer is redundant, but at least you can see that two people arrived at virtually the same conclusion 😀

We need to define a threshold of energy that we consider "ionizing radiation", and we also need to a more precise definition of "starlight".

I will arbitrarily select the ionizing radiation threshold to be at 10 eV (124 nm). As for "starlight", let's just say that we want to push the 750 nm red light all the way until the point where it becomes ionizing. One thing to consider is that in this situation you will also push infra-red light from the stars towards the visible, so if a star emits a lot infrared this IR light will become "starlight". So the answer can be muddled up by all of these definitions as well as the emission properties of the star.

To keep it simple... Let's shift 750 nm red light to 124 nm ionizing radiation. You can rearrange the Doppler expression from this website to solve for the "v" to get the velocity needed to transform 750 nm to 124 nm. The solution I get is -284,035,329 m/s, with the "-" sign indicating movement of the receiver towards the source.

You can double-check by inputting 750 nm as the wavelength from the light emitted by the source, -284,035,329 m/s as the velocity, and the speed of light as "c":

Then, if you agree with the assumptions, definitions, and the analysis, the receiver needs to move at about 94.68% the speed of light to shift the redder starlight into the ionizing radiation range.

Parallelepiped

I see - thank you for adding that context, I think that this title change is in itself quite interesting... Because then they did intend to use a sensationalist title, and only changed it later.

I have double-checked out of curiosity and I do see that your post's title is the title indexed by google:

I am sorry for jumping into the assumption that you had changed the title yourself.

Good point - reported

Exactly! I was worried you wouldn't be able to read in between my lines 😌

But in all seriousness this is such a huge failure of our media to resort to scaremongering instead of staring the facts.

I agree.

But in this case that is not what is happening.... The linked article does not make the claim that is present in the title of this post at all!

The actual title of the linked article is: Leaked German military documents laid out a doomsday scenario where Russia wins in Ukraine then invades Europe

The article explicitly states:

The documents are not a prediction but part of worst-case-scenario planning, a common exercise within militaries. A German official called the scenario "extremely unlikely."

So I don't think that the title of this post is fair. Russia could go to war with NATO in 2024, and you don't need a leaked document to tell you that. But there is nothing in this article that makes this possibility seem any more or less likely.