For one thing this is only a conjecture - there are papers out there stating the opposite of this with some variations in reasoning. If we go with this version of events, though, I've not read the actual paper but the abstract says something about supersymmetric vacua being marginally stable so maybe the conjecture works along the lines of there being multiple degenerate supersymmetric ground state vacua which are generally separated by domain walls, and non-supersymmetric vacua eventually decay into one of those.
I suppose this could be a side effect of how the subject seems to train people to think that they are right about everything, or at least more right than normal people who can't reel off the names of 3 famous philosophers who worked on a particular philosophical idea with an overly fancy name.
Anyway I agree that discussing this already constitutes philosophy, if we want, so I don't share chris' attitude towards the discipline as a whole. I understand a bit more the disaffection with the idea of philosophy as a discipline on its own today.
Today, anything that you might call part of philosophy that is worth discussing is part of a different field. It was of historical value but today is an amalgamation of things that have developed into fields with their own experts. The philosopher is like that one know-it-all giving all the experts unsolicited advice while arguing their approach is more pure, when in reality it is just more pretentious. The fact that a philosopher can barely go a paragraph without name-dropping Kant or Popper or someone doesn't help convince me that there is any modern value (generation of meaningful ideas) in considering it a discrete discipline. Really, it's an aspect of many other disciplines. There's meta-science and meta-law and stuff, but to group all of these very different things under one umbrella is hubris. This is why I don't have a problem with a scientist metaphysically discussing interpretation of quantum mechanics or something, but why I do have a problem with a philosopher trying to apply some pure-philosophical idea to science. It almost invariably will just lead to out-of-touch rambling. If it doesn't, it's probably well-established enough to already be meta-science, rather than pure philosophy. Maybe it works better in the overlap with other fields, I don't know. Is my view of things skewed? Possibly. I did take a "philosophy of science" course a couple of years ago and it mostly reinforced my prejudices, despite my attempts to go in with an open mind to see if I could get what the big deal some people make about philosophy is. In the end, I think the word philosophy should be retired, more or less.
Today in Only in Japan...http://aramajapan.com/news/yonekura-ryoko-announces-divorce/68749/"Yonekura commented that it had taken them time to settle the divorce and reported on it once it was finalized. She apologized for causing concern over her private matters."Not even Canadian celebrities would be so polite as to apologise to their fans for causing concern while going through a divorce. Anywhere else in the world it'd be at best "Thank you for your concern, but we ask that you respect our privacy" (which Yonekura's agency basically does on her behalf). Probably more like "Leave me alone, it's none of your business."And this has been today's Only in Japan...