Even without bookmarks, there's no need to keep tabs open. Just hit "Ctl-H", then enter a word related to what you want to go back to. You'll almost always find what you're looking for in your own history list within seconds.

I could never understand why anyone would keep more than half a dozen tabs open at any given time. The WWW was designed to be stateless: "Ctl-W" is your friend.

This is like sending coals from eastern Newcastle to western Newcastle.

They'd disclosed it but the first one hadn't finished testifying under oath about it. And that matters. The latter has status as evidence in court.

> 5. ?

> 6. Profit

That works if you're a prostitute. Without a government, it doesn't scale much beyond that.

Cool story, bro.

Why not? The whole concept of a "business" is nothing more than a fiat defined by the government.

There are all sorts of rules regarding businesses. One is that customers that owe you money have to eventually pay, and if they don't, you can run to the government for help. In this particular case, large employers have to treat their employees somewhat like human beings, and not just totally upend their families' lives with no warning.

Maybe if employees routinely quit en masse without warning, that would be an issue. But it's not an issue. How do we know? Because almost all businesses use an "at will" work policy if they are allowed. This means that being able to unceremoniously dump employees than is much more important to them than the risk of some employees suddenly quitting.

This is nothing new.

40 years ago, I had friends blowing big chunks of money they didn't have on things like new high-end stereo equipment, scuba gear and souping up their cars. They went through the same home economics classes and go the same parental advice as everyone else, but they just chose to ignore it. I'm sure the exact same thing is happening now to a similar subset of the population.

Because if they're explaining to non-scientists, they might as well be explaining to babies. The foundational knowledge taught in schools simply isn't up to the standard needed.

If you can't make useful predictions within the parameters of your model, you can't test the ideas. Ergo, the shut up and calculate side does have a good argument.

Previously, in physics, there has been a three-way dance between theorists who develop the mathematical description, theorists who develop the mechanical description, and practical physicists who carry out observations both to test the theories and to apply them in practical terms. This dance kept everything moving.

This may or may not be the correct way to approach quantum mechanics. The rules are very different in that domain.

On the other hand, it's easy to spot the hostility between the groups and it's obvious that the anticipated new physics isn't getting found. New models are rare and are struggling. The dance hasn't completely stopped, but it is definitely in trouble.

But, of course, that might equally be down to the increased competition, the need to publish trivial results quickly rather than do anything profound, and the greatly reduced investment in blue sky science.

I'm going to suggest it's a mix of stuff. We need a lot more funding, a lot less aggro, and we either need to get the mechanical description partner back on their feet or we need to find an alternative to them if that sort of description just doesn't work in this arena.

But I think the science dance needs three sides. I think we're going to find that the calculate lobby can't advance a whole lot further on their own, and that they cannot produce a theory of everything without some idea of what an everything is.

If a manufacturer knows that a system has a specific defect that makes it dangerous to use in certain contexts, it is usually obliged by law to report those circumstances. The license agreement is not necessarily considered legally binding or protective where there is a case of wilful neglect. Deliberate actions are not treated the same as lack of awareness or even negligence. But even negligence may be treated unsympathetically by the courts, no matter what customers sign up to.

Given that this defect could have left exposed critical infrastructure, banks, and businesses whose work is in the national interest, one might even be able to argue a case that this gave succour to hostile powers.

The most probable outcome is nothing happening. Companies are risk-averse and Microsoft has expensive lawyers. But a class action suit for wilful endangerment isn't wholly impossible, and I could see the DOJ investigating whether laws were broken, but only after the election.