Edison -or, more precisely, his Portland cement company was building such houses over 100 years ago. It was no success.

While I appreciate the rare occurrence of people apologising, it worries me that this is the only part of your little discussion rated "interesting: 5". How is this this apology more interesting than the contemplation about the future of NASA?

True libertarians want to be acknowledged as independent persons, mind their own business and do not welcome any paternalistic interference from others. I would imagine them raising their children in the same way, with respect for their individuality, BUT, as long as they are minor, protecting them from influences the parents deem undesirable.

I understand that people don't agree with a price setting of goods, be it software or whatever. In this case, $60 may be outrageous. Or not. Doesn't really matter.

What I don't understand is how this mysteriously translates into "I will just make my own copy, because I am entitled to it because of ... reasons". People don't sneak into theaters or concerts (okay, maybe a minority does). People don't sneak into theme parks. People don't steal apples. But for some reason, in the case of software, this is all okay, because I don't agree with the price setting.

What ever happened to: I think it is too expensive, I am not having it?

Do no evil..........“Four legs good, two legs bad.”
Do the right thing..............“Four legs good, two legs BETTER!"
Military AI............"already it was impossible to say which was which."

Indeed. The story is well known. Here is a good account from 1982(!).

TBH, the complete quote was:

In other words: the quality of vinyl has mostly to do with any step involved in the creation of said vinyl, which sounds reasonable, but also meaningless.

... and antiseptics.

It is a common misunderstanding that a life expectancy of e.g. 35 years implies that most people die around that age, and e.g. sexagenarians are extremely rare. In reality, people in e.g. the Middle Ages regularly reached "old age" as well. That is: if they survived birth and infancy. Child mortality and childbed fever (killing the mother) used to be very high until Ignace Semmelweiss introduced hand disinfection before assisting in childbirth. At that time, it was not uncommon for doctors to perform autopsies and then go on to deliver babies without so much as washing their hands. Even though he saved thousands of lives, Semmelweiss did not fare well and ended up in the loony bin

Something similar happened in the world of surgery. Nineteenth century surgeons were unaware of microbes and did not work under sterile conditions. Here it was Joseph Lister who realised the importance of antiseptics and eventually changed medical practices.

On the contrary. According to Pruitt, CO2 is not a consequence of human activity, whereas I explicitly say people don't care enough to do something, implying that they have an influence. Moreover, *any* of these things is only a problem insofar as one cares about humans. The point you don't seem to be getting is that -at least in principle- fixing CO2 is easy. Just stop using coal fired plants etc. I am very interested to hear your solution -even just theoretically- to remove (micro-)plastics from the environment.

Pro tip. The OP (the "troll") may have been joking...

GP is correct: the threat of plastic is much worse than the threat of CO2. For one, the CO2 would disappear naturally through the growth of vegetation. The only reason why CO2 appears to be a bigger problem is that, apparently, we don't care enough to really do something about it. The fundamental problem of plastics,e.g. in the ocean is much bigger than that of CO2.

Batteries Prices Keep On Going and Going Up.... Demand Is Shrinking

Sounds reasonable.

And quite rightly so. Whetever you may have liked to call it, this boils down to unwantedly and unknowingly collection data about other persons. Moreover, afaik the profiles involved are identifiable.

The answer can also be: under twilight conditions. At dusk and dawn, the relative amount of UV -as compared to visible light- is much higher. You can easily check this by looking at e.g. a flurescent marker, which is much more pronounced at that time of day.

Rule number one of investing: only invest money you don't need. Borrowing money to invest is a complete contradiction. In the case of student loans that may not be such a problem (not living in the US I have no idea how well protected you are).

Rule number two of investing: only invest in what you understand. Debatable in this case.

Rule number three of investing (as opposed to speculation): do value investing. No investment whatsoever could be further away from value investing than crypto currency. I am a sufficiently old fart to know that what went up yesterday and the day before may go down tomorrow, especially if it has no intrinsic value.

This seems like problems in the making...