First, the obvious ad hominem: Who appointed Michael Chriton the arbiter of what science is?

But as for the actual argument he makes, "scientific consensus" doesn't mean or imply that something is true or correct because of the consensus. It means that scientists have converged on a reliable theory. If someone wants to refute that theory, they're going to need extraordinary evidence to do it.

Here's the thing that is always ignored by people arguing against the idea of consensus: Scientists generally love extraordinary evidence. Come out with a repeatable experiment that disproves a well-established theory and people will jump at the chance to put their name to the new theories that will follow.

So yes, scientific consensus is a real and valuable thing. And science advancing by questioning consensus is also a real and valuable thing.

Did Twitter take down the NY Post article? Are you not able to go to their site and view it? Hmm ... it seems like the only thing Twitter decided was what they were going to show on their (privately owned, not-subject-to-the-first-amendment, protected by Section 230) system.

555 I'm not familiar with.

Please cite your evidence for this assertion.

Thanks, Dad.

This should be a simple fix: Don't treat moving things as traffic control signs. Are there exceptions to this? The only one I've seen is when they're in the process of closing a lane and there's a slow-moving truck setting out cones or barrels, with a safety vehicle behind.

I don't think this is what the article is suggesting, but it prompted this idea: What if we had some set of additional oversight/regulation for the largest X companies? Come up with some criteria - total revenue, profit, etc. - and whatever are the top say 20 get the additional requirements.

What new regulations? Maybe shift some of the burden of proof of anti-competitive behavior. Make them demonstrate annually how they are able to reach the size they are without forcing out competitors.

Over time I expect you'd see companies approaching the bottom rung to start looking at spinning off divisions rather than become subject to the regs. This would be an incentive to not become "too big".

It's not just about the data. Phones - especially iPhones - are highly-portable high-value items. In theory, with sufficiently strong security on them you remove the incentive for theft, because whoever gets it can't do anything with it.

But this only works if potential thieves know that any phone they may grab is more likely than not locked down. If it's easy to leave your phone open to the world, lots of people (just like you) will do that. Then everyone has to guard their phones against theft.

We need an agency that is focused just on protection. Having the conflicting priorities within the same agency can't (and obviously doesn't) work.

That's why we need to change the NSA's (and all the other acronym agencies) mandate from surveilling Americans to protecting them.

What OP said was:

Not post revolution. The executions are the revolution.