So, if I'm understanding correctly, when when electrons move along a 2d surface, one doesn't have to account for their mass. When they are forced to move along one dimension, their masses have to be taken into account. We're not actually creating mass, but mass now has to be factored into the electron behavior. Is this because they're more likely to collide, or are at least close enough that mass/gravity becomes a factor? Is this even close to a lay-understanding of what's going on?

It's just a matter of what's taboo. You could yell 'fuck' or 'damn' in the middle of a crowd and probably not get much of a reaction. You'd get a much bigger reaction shouting racial slurs, which weren't such a big deal a couple generations ago. What offends people changes with time.

I always wince when I hear about CEOs or traders being highly compensated because they have good "instincts." It seems like we're rewarding people who make the most aggressive, risky decisions and then simply luck out. In a large enough systems we'll always have some people succeeding with this kind of decision-making. Once they're in a position of power they are just as likely to make mistakes (past luck being no indicator of future luck), but by then they're in a system where rewards and bonuses are barely tied to performance.

Apple has already issued a statement denying this story as "pure fiction." Amazing how much we want to believe rumors like this, though I did hear that something similar happened with Richard Stallman and a katana.

Yes, but the point is that the price of PCs, laptops, digital cameras, etc have all gone down even as their capabilities increase at least as fast as bandwidth.

Robotic snake Overlords? Modular snakes on a plane? "It can also wrap itself around a pole and climb vertically" - Yeah, but not as well as your mom? See? Still ripe for comments.

Are you kidding? Agendas, missions statements, memos, they do it all! Or did you mean a clear and compelling vision of the direction a project should be moving? Hmmm, maybe you're right.

How does this really compare to companies that are not considered "High-tech?" Are those companies spending a lot more money and time on training management, or is it just that most MBA-type programs are geared towards that type of management role?
I know several retired engineers who became managers in companies that invested in their training throughout their career. I'd be curious to see statistics on how that's changed over the years. It could be that high-tech companies are just more likely to reflect modern business practices. Perhaps those companies are more likely to feel the effects of hiring people from a "pure management" background because managing complex engineering projects is, you know, complicated.

From the paper:
The city greenhouse gas emissions inventories discussed in this paper all use a traditional production-based approach to allocating emissions, meaning that they take into account the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced within the area under consideration.
i.e. Not the areas they are consumed. This is partly the GPs point. Many emissions attributed to rural areas are really produced in support of urban areas.