This joke falls kinda flat because it reads like you're trying to make a point. Like maybe some kinda "nature is always right" naturalistic fallacy.

We still do lighter than air flight with helium(and in the case of weather balloons, hydrogen). Nature has exactly zero precedent for lighter-than air flight, but it's not a bad idea.

Neither article makes any claim of a need for chemical purity of the water. What would coarse filter + reverse osmosis levels of purity be insufficient?

Do you have a third source of information or is this baseless dismissal?

...

It still takes more energy to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen than it releases by reacting.

Do you mean, "Why not this instead of photosynthesis?"

And that's because hydrogen is chemically unstable and hard to store compared to sugars. Neither of those are good things for living creatures.

Or is it the comparably low demand for hydrogen, due to its dangerous and/or inconvenient differing characteristics with hydrocarbons?

I mean, either way, it's good news, but in one case it's opening a possible revolution, and in the other it's just nice to have.

Okay sure, but the summary addressed video games, so it's topical.

And as to your second statement, I agree, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

For someone condemning "both sides" you're awfully quick to assume that hypothetical actors fall on one "side" or another.

If you believe your attitude is the objectively correct one, you should give everyone the benefit of the doubt as to believing it as well.

And honestly, complaints like this one show a poor knowledge of how long software actually takes to develop. A vertical slice of a game good enough to base a trailer on is much much closer to 10 or 20% than 50% or 60% of the total effort.

This post is an interesting case in wrongness density.

There's good reason to believe that genes aren't sufficient cause for the full effects noted in twin studies. Certainly they play a part, and this study helps us isolate just how much can be directly attributed to genetics(and it's not the 100%, that you might have been imagining).

Because we have a system of elections that are virtually designed to award offices to those most inter-tangled with corporate powers. Privately financed campaigns, winner take all elections that tend towards gerrymandered "safe" districts, unlimited corporate financial support for campaigns.

That doesn't mean this particular action is a result of that corruption(though there's no reason to expect otherwise), just that those in office have a very strong interest in excusing the behavior being allowed to provide incentives to their sponsors.

Yeah, and I'm saying that those issues kick in under much more extreme conditions than analogue ones.

Yeah, going to echo the sentiments of the poster below, and suggest you don't remember analogue TV. Every bit of noise meant a visual artifact on the screen(or audio). Whereas digital can use an ECC to fix erroneous data.

The big problem is there is a threshold of quality for which a signal simply doesn't work at all. Which means these are the stations that had a constant unwanted background buzz and flickering static for you before.

I can't think of a thing microsoft has done in the past few years that aren't one of these:
A. Restructuring their corporation
B. Rebranding an existing product(so many times)
C. Ripping off another company's consumer tech while being years too late to the party.

Oh, believe me, I'm not an anti-automated vehicle person yet.

But at some point, we're going to have to acknowledge that people will want use them as completely automated.

Self park? Driving drunk people home? Picking your kids(or more reasonably, teens) up? Dropping you off at the airport? Actually sleeping on long drives? Replacing expensive semi-truck drivers?
There's so many applications that totally automated vehicles. And like it or not, some people are going to assume they work for these.

I dunno.

Train tracks seems like a normalish navigation hazard. "Look and listen for train" should be as doable as "look for pedestrians".

Just less common.