Did anyone hear the audio jungle sound watermark in the video? It appears someone could not afford $7 for a license...

Exactly my thoughts...

Like the people that share stuff publicity online are amazed that people unknown to them can access it...

At this point I want to remind everybody that Equal Work Fatality Day for 2016 will be held 2037.

I am not sure about your prediction, but at this point any significant disruption of US politics is a good thing. If we end up with 3 parties would actually be a signiiant improvement.

Yes, but zero trust is an old hat. The basic idea is that you pretend all devices are on the public internet. This makes is a non issue when they actually are and a rogue device in the network will create little harm. This reduces the effort to secure the corporate network, since it is basically regarded as public and unsafe.

"The Committee on Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change Attribution" writes the report "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change"...

Without claiming their findings are invalid, it appears that they put the cart in front of the horse. They create a committee to find something and that committee finds it. It is really hard not to immediately start looking for confirmation bias.

This does not compute. Normal pavement is generally made up of waste products from oil and coal extraction and combustion processes. It's dirt cheap and in many cases the producers pay to get rid of it. On the other hand you have small computers with large arrays of silicon infused with platinum, gold and rare earth minerals. You are figuratively and somewhat literally paving the road with gold. If you want sensing equipment on roads, then install pneumatic or radar sensors.

Photovoltaik may barely work, when you keep the glass clean and install it in an optimal orientation. Putting it above the road to shade the drivers may actually be a better idea, than on the pavement...

Also when a company spends the money to "avoid" taxes, the money does not just disappear, it is spend on goods and services. Say for example a company builds a new building, because they have so much money to spare. The money goes to the builder and his subcontractors, which then run a profit and further buy goods and services. With a flat tax rate, as long as someone is running a profit the taxes get collected in the end (or payroll tax as parent mentions), just not from one company, but from many.

Additionally this is EXACTLY what you want. Generally you do not want companies or individuals to hoard money. You want to keep the money flowing, since that stimulates the economy. Incentivising reinvestment is actually a good idea.

Burma Shave

When was the last time you saw smog?

I had a very similar experience with Google. In my decade of work experience as a software engineer, I have been soling "big picture" issues all the time. It very rarely went down the "quick sort" level of algorithms and I have been working on compilers and language interpretation most of the time. The general work can be summered, here are some requirements, make it working software. Yet, when I interviewed with Google a few years back, all I got was CS 101 "quick sort" style questions. I was mildly prepared for it, but their insistence on low level questions was slightly disturbing. Yes, Google was the hardest to interview, but not in a good way, more in the "moving Mt. Fuji" style of bad interview.

Exactly, also 98% of the questions, answers and code contained within are trivial, if you have the requisite domain know how. This means that most of it would fall under the obvious fact doctrine and not be copyrightable anyway. The key issue with SO, is that most people who ask or look up questions simply don't have the domain know how; yet; which makes it a valuable learning tool.

To paraphrase the article:

"O M G! Somebody claims that my diet is bad for the environment. That cant be true. I get that you omnivores are sick of being criticized for your unhealthy and evil ways. I know that because I heard about all these studies, so this study must be a load of crap. I mean who eats only salad, vegetarians obviously eat soy."

I would be shocked if in 20 years time any EV (as we know them now) are sold at all. The key issue is that batteries are stupid and they aren't that eco friendly once you account for disposal (or material reclaiming). I would rather think that a good number of cars will run with internal combution engines, just powered by bio diesel and gasoline from CO2 sequestration. Both are technologies that work, just need to be scaled up and made economically feasible. (Carbon tax on fossil fuels and subsidy for C02 neutral sources.) This requires no change on the end of the consumer or automotive technology.

Be careful with that "methods and devices" claim. The motion to dismiss of Netflix states explicitly that "Method And Apparatus" claims are invalid under current rules. This is obviously, because as you mocked, the claimant tries to get "anything similar to".