And how can I say that with absolute certainty?

Because the idiotic IAU definition explicitly requires that a planet orbit the Sun. Not just any star, but specifically the Sun.

So we know exactly how many planets in the entire universe have oceans.

One.

That's it.

Of course, there are always idiots who won't check what previously happened, or imagine that India surely won't do to them what it did to Nokia with the Chennai plant . . . .

Because when it comes to fudges, everything else is more fudge-like than dark matter.

See, we already have reason to believe there are sterile neutrinos. All observed fermions except neutrinos come in both left- and right-chirality, while observed neutrinos only come in left-chirality. Further, observed neutrinos have been proven to have mass, and even before they were proven to have masses the usual quantum mechanics equations implied that if they did, then counterpart right-chirality neutrinos would also exist. And these counterpart neutrinos would, per the quantum mechanics, fail to interact with the strong, weak, or electromagnetic forces (thus why they were called "sterile"), but they would have masses and interact with gravity.

So, then we've got a whole bunch of observations of the universe that imply there's a whole bunch of mass out there that doesn't interact with the strong, weak, or electromagnetic forces (and thus is "dark"), but does interact with gravity. These include not just the usual galactic rotation curves, but things like the Bullet Cluster, which does gravitational lensing not as if it has two separated centers of mass on its wings (which its visible matter most definitely is), but one central concentration of mass (which would have to be non-visible).

Then there were the observations of galaxies whose apparent rotation curves were much slower, relative to their visible mass, than most others. That doesn't make any sense at all if rotation curves are determined by visible matter; you have to invent new patches to any non-dark-matter explanation of galactic rotation curves to explain these cases, while with dark matter you say, "Collisions between galaxies can just by random chance change their dark-to-visible matter ratios; if dark matter is true, we'd expect to see some low-dark-matter galaxies."

So, "sterile neutrinos exist and make up much of the mass of the universe" explains a bunch of observations both at cosmic scales and quantum scales. A computer model of tidal forces just plain doesn't; it "solves" the usual galactic rotation problem without explaining the unusual cases, or the Bullet Cluster, or anything else.

Similarly, there's also the axions, which solve the strong CP problem in quantum chromodynamics, and also could have mass while not interacting with the electromagnetic force and having minimal interactions with the strong and weak forces. Like sterile neutrinos, they too can contribute to "dark matter" astronomical observations while also solving a quantum mechanical issue, instead of explaining away only one "dark matter" issue.

In short, many major "dark matter" candidates explain whole slews of astronomical observations as a side effect of very simple extrapolations of standard quantum mechanics, while all the non-"dark matter" theories are fix-only-one-issue fudges invented post-hoc to correct one class of observations.

That's how the consensus that there's dark matter became so fixed. Everything else requires multiple unrelated theories to explain as much as (e.g.) "sterile neutrinos" does all at once.

The process is simple enough -- they sue on grounds of trademark tarnishment.

Now, as a matter of law, simply having a villain use an iPhone wouldn't usually trigger actual liability. However, the court ruling that the use of the Apple-trademarked product in the movie is legal cones after the lawsuit, not before it, and US law doesn't have the sensible "loser pays" provision for the costs of the lawsuit like every other developed country.

If you think reality is wrong, the correct move is to change reality, not spread lies about it.

The actual geography is already actually controlled by the people who seized it through violence; I'm not "ceding" anything.

And yes, much of Africa should be redrawn to reflect reality.

Well, one could simply use the actual reality of physically-manifested sovereignty, as in, "If you commit a crime there, whose police and courts do you have to deal with?"

Thus, the Golan Heights are Israeli; Gaza is ruled by Hamas; what India claims is Kashmir is split between China, India, and Pakistan; Taiwan is independent; Northern Cyprus is its own country; and so on.

It would make a lot of people upset, because you'd be ignoring their cherished fictions, but it cuts through a lot of crap.

People would use and remember that.

When people in the computer science classes go, "Ew, I don't like this, this isn't easy" and quit, that's not quite the same thing as being unable to learn.

The education system proves that we can pound the times table and the algorithm for long division in someone's head with enough effort and repetition (even if a non-trivial fraction soon forget). If arithmetic were offered on the same basis as computer science, most people would graduate unable to do it, but they'd still be able to learn to do it. I'm pretty sure the same is true of "coding".

But it's just the coding part that can be drilled. Programming -- by which I mean actually designing and implementing non-trivial data structures and algorithms to achieve a result, with the specific expression in code secondary -- is something else.

Pretty much anyone can learn to code. Only a minority of people can actually program computers competently.

It's the difference between learning to swing a bat, and hitting a Major League pitcher's fastball. The first isn't very hard, the second is only possible if you have a certain amount of innate talent.

The galaxy-formation theories are all about a step and a half up from wild-ass guesses. The current galaxy-formation theories failing to stand up to new observations is about as surprising as a snowstorm in Michigan in January.

The important thing is, these cases of missing dark matter make it all the more certain that the cause of the observations that led to the dark matter hypothesis is indeed a matter of a real form of matter that makes up part of the composition of most galaxies.

If the problem with our observations was that General Relativity was wrong at large scales, that the real law of gravity was different, then every galaxy without fail would follow the different gravitational law, and thus they would all move the same way. If a small minority of galaxies move differently, though, that tells you that the issue is a difficult-to-observe factor in the composition of galaxies.

The clone army isn't made up of professional military personnel bred to the task. It's a whole bunch of speed-grown copies of a bounty hunter, all less than ten years old, programmed by civilians in a galaxy that hasn't had an army for generations, led by amateurs (Jedi "generals").

Where, exactly, do they get any grasp of military science?

You are aware that the military isn't a bunch of robotic order-obeying machines, right? Polling makes it clear that America's active-duty military personnel, America's veterans, and America's gun owners all have roughly the same political opinions. Including supporting the election of Trump over Clinton by roughly 2-1.

So, the key question in this scenario is what percentage of Trump voters would reject the legitimacy of the impeachment and removal. Because whatever that percentage is will not only dictate how many gun-owning civilians reject the impeachment as illegitimate, but how much of the military will reject it, too.

You may also note that this basic logic also applies to attempts to use the military to enforce, say, a gun-confiscation law. A law that provoked true mass resistance by gun owners would be opposed by so many soldiers that it would be impossible to use the military to enforce it.

That way, through regulatory capture, the existing giants can make sure the burdens on any new competitors are so severe that their monopolies are secure forever.

IBM went with the 8088 over the 68k for two major reasons:

1) Chip Availability.

While Motorola's official intro date for the 68000 was September 1979, the first allocated production didn't ship until February 1980, and mass deliveries didn't take place until November 1980.

IBM, on the other hand, was designing the PC in early 1980 for a manufacturing start in April 1981. IBM utterly refused to make its PC dependent on a chip that at the time of design wasn't even in real mass production; indeed, IBM corporate standards (which didn't fully apply to Project Chess) established that IBM wouldn't use a chip that had actually been shipping in quantity for a year for its design, to avoid early-production bugs.

And Motorola didn't ship the 68008 until 1982, which certainly wasn't in time to manufacture computers in April 1981. Maybe they could have if they had an IBM contract to push them, but they certainly couldn't make guarantees of that in early 1980, when they were not making 68000s in quantity. IBM would have been making a serious gamble if they used the straight 68000, much less the 86008.

2) Software Availability.

All the major personal computer software in 1980 was written in 8080 assembly code for CP/M. Porting it to M68k would be a real pain, particularly as CP/M 68K was nowhere near ready. Porting it to CP/M-86 or QDOS on 8086 was easy; Intel had an assembly translator for 8080-to-8086, and Seattle Computer Products (writers of QDOS/PC-DOS/MS-DOS) had a Z80-to-8086 assembly translator. Examples of then-major applications that were at least partly machine-translated from 8080 assembly code for the IBM PC include Microsoft BASIC, VisiCalc, dBase II, and WordStar; because IBM used the 8088, all could be and were available on the day the IBM PC was released.

If IBM had used the M68k, there might not even have been an operating system ready by October 1981, much less a full set of essential applications. As it was, IBM had the software to be a credible alternative to the then standard S-100 Z80 CP/M business microcomputer on day one, even if the translated software didn't run any better on the IBM PC than it did on a Z80.

Seriously. The only thing NYC has is proximity to Wall Street (which Amazon hardly needs). In exchange, you get a high cost of living, massive state and local taxes, and a whole pile of perennially-hostile politicians. That NYC even made the HQ2 shortlist was insanely stupid.

The logical location was a state with Republican senators (thus ensuring a "Senator from Amazon" being in the majority whichever party controls the Senate), low cost-of-living, a pro-business state political environment, a large local tech scene, and a major university also known for tech. Which is to say, the Austin or Raleigh areas.