That was the reason I switched to Linux. Of course, I could have switched to BSD, but Debian potato was easier to install.

The hero tale is one with a long history behind it. I think it's always been the dominant style. So that's not really a legitimate criticism...not unless you are making an encompassing claim, and if you are, then it's false. (I've encountered several books with a heroine.) And the dominant style always reflects the zeitgeist. (In the late 1940's and early 50's there was lots of WWII echoes, often re-staged in different settings.)

FWIW, my tastes have always been quite narrow, and minority, but I think they've narrowed over the years. OTOH, possibly it's just that the net doesn't provide exposure to the tales that I would like. Perhaps they're still out there, but I can no longer easily browse through and tell that they're something I'd be interested in.

Part of the problem is definitely the sales channel. Grocery stores only carry "best sellers". (They may not actually be best sellers, but they're marketed as such.) 20 displays of 10 books, and two or three with only a few...probably left over from last month.) Also a few books that I already have on my shelf, from a decade ago.

Even book stores lean in this direction, sufficiently that I no longer want to browse in them. (OTOH, I always preferred science-fiction and technical books.)

But I really think part of the problem is the zeitgeist. Nobody wants to read it. It's like when the anti-hero became "popular with publishers". People found reading that stuff unpleasant, so they stopped. Except for a few. And some of those will be picked up, eventually, as classics that everyone should read. Just like "Jude the Obscure" was. Nobody that I ever met liked that story, but some academics thought it was important enough to force everyone to read it.

The last technical book I bought used grey ink for the examples. If I'd been able to see it before I bought it, I wouldn't have. I think they probably had a decent book, but the only editing was for the e-book, and that used color, but they printed the book in black and white.

Another turned out not to have any index. The text was decent, but just try to look something up.

The editors of print books are ... not quite worthless, as they may do a decent job for e-books, but the print version is merely an afterthought. If it weren't painful to read long text passages on the screen, I'd have given up on books.

That's overly specific. How about "can, in principle, be at least as effective as a photon drive". I don't think one can really rule out one that's a bit more effective, even if I've no idea how one would make such a thing. (I believe that a photon drive has theoretic limits on it's efficiency that are a bit more stringent than the more general limits...but there might be some way of generating light that got around those limits...so perhaps "can't be any more efficient that a totally ideally optimal photon drive".)

Even so, I'm not sure. If it's something that can't ever return, most of the arguments about the maximum efficiency fail because there's no way of performing the measurements.

Also there are these cute arguments about drives that essentially require the mass of Jupiter (or more) to distort space-time. Some of those seem to be valid arguments for a drive without a reaction mass. They are just essentially impossible to build.

That said, perhaps these extreme devices...things involving zero point energy, FTL drives, reactionless drives, etc. are really just pointing out a place where the theories are wrong. None of these devices are actually buildable, so nobody can test them, as they all require some form or other of unobtainium. (Constructs with negative mass, portable masses heavier than Jupiter, etc.) I still remember "Rotating cylinders and a global causality violation", even though the plot of the story was a bit ... acausal. (The story doesn't seem to have any on-line references, but *it* was a reference to https://www.franktipler.com/ti... )

More to the point, if they don't collect personally identifiable information, how do they know that you've paid.

Well, this summary is based on a story from someone quoting a story in The Guardian. Not the best way to get accurate news on science.

That's an extreme formulation. It does imply that certain efficiencies would be equivalent to perpetual motion, but if the amount of energy required were sufficient to offset the gain in relativistic mass & potential energy I don't believe the argument fails. And it might be able to use half that energy, as the contradiction doesn't occur until it returns to the origin. And there's no thermodynamic reason that staying stable in a gravitational field should require any energy. (Anything in orbit is an example of that.)

I don't believe that this device will work, but I believe that your argument doesn't work either.

It's not a term for which there is a "generally accepted" definition. It's slang, which is widely variable between sub-populations.

The general idea of "drone" is usually someone who's useless.
The general idea of "suit" is someone who dresses excessively formally.
These are both judgements based on the perceptions of the one doing the describing.

If you think of it as a missile, you've also got a different idea than what I'm talking about. It's sort of a cross between a missile and a fighter that is designed to work in swarms, run by a "home base" that could be a large truck for small swarms of short distance versions. Imagine *highly* souped up model airplanes that are designed to act like missiles, if called upon. Long distance versions would probably always be more ammunition than craft (sort of like cruise missiles) for cost reasons, but shorter range versions would be expected to be refuel-able, and reusable unless the particular craft was used for an attack.
FWIW, I expect most of them to be relatively short-range, but too fast for the quad-copter design to work. Perhaps one model could be designed for "site defense".

I don't expect swarms to use the same form factor as a fighter. Really I expect them to be a cross between a fighter and a missile. No guns on board, and no missiles on board. Yes, fly like a plane, and land safely back home if you can, but also the attack mode is to crash into the target (or get close enough, and explode). Size will (and design details) will be dependent on desired range and speed.

As a result, each individual craft will be a LOT cheaper than current fighters. But a swarm may well be even more expensive. (Depending on swarm size and desired range and speed.)

The story lines were derivative. But no more so than the current ones. The story lines have been slowly evolving since the Greek plays. (We even still use some of the Greek terms to refer to them.)

Movies have become more derivative every decade since the motion picture camera was invented. This is the "low hanging fruit" observation.

People only have a certain number of desires, and only desire a certain amount of change. As it gets more difficult to come up with something new that people like, something old will get repeated more. As there gets to be a longer history of "something old that people liked", something new will be created less often.

It's not just movies. You can see it everywhere. Consider, e.g., software. A new edition has to change something noticeable, but it gets harder to come up with something new that people will like as much.

Do you try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs also?

>Have you ever coded anything in assembly?
I design the silicon on which the machine code runs.

You make a lot of assumptions.

The time when we could (sometimes) rely on legislators to mandate basic security was back when they understood how basic security worked. In these areas only (some) tech specialists do.

That is, indeed, the most ethical. It's the way I chose. But I never deluded myself into believing that it would alter the behavior of the companies. Only two things (that I've thought of) stand a chance of doing that.
1) If you stop selling something that you are the monopolizer of sales in, you lose all associated copyrights. (And possibly all associated patents.) I.e. legal action to make things that you buy act is if they are yours.
2) Massive community on-line attacks whenever a company disables something that it's sold.

I don't think either of those have much chance of happening, and the second would be quite dangerous.