"It's just the pursuit of truth, which math, peer review, and jargon have no bearing on!"

The guy is a little skewed, but you're putting up a strawman here. He's not saying "have no bearing on" but rather "are not the core of what makes science science, and cannot by themselves make what you are doing science." And that is absolutely correct.

But I was always told it was okay to leave nothing but footprints!

Yes, but at the same time, paying for an internet line to be run to your house can actually cost more than your house in rural areas

And asking for a subsidy doesn't make that cost go away--in fact, it'll make it higher. You're just making somebody else pay the cost for you.

I already have a program to read all logs, more or less.

In fact, you have *two* programs to read all logs. More and less.

You think Doom and Quake aren't cartoony?

I never got the reaction of the start screen. It's basically a full screen Start Menu.

Which is at least part of the problem. A Start Menu doesn't *need* a full screen, and it's incredibly wasteful and inconvenient to make it take up a full screen.

More importantly, not only did you know why it was happening, whether or not it happened was *your choice*.

Do they also walk dogs?

Awwww, I wanted to do that one...

Minecraft: The Flamethrower! The kids love that one.

But hopefully without the disco this time.

Similarly, 99% of the problem could be stopped if they cancelled the Equitable Sharing program and instead insisted that all such seizures to go to the federal government, not to any local fund.

Hmmm...possibly. How much of local cops' seizures actually belong to the feds and are "shared" back by this program, and how much are seizures under local authority--or could be made so if the local cops think they won't get federal seizures back? The latter can't be constitutionally claimed by the feds, although it would be possible to insist it all go to the state government.

NFL: One of the many industries where smooth talking idiots can rake in millions spewing bullshit.

Fixed that for you.

They looked at reanalyses that had already been done for other reasons, rather than doing their own reanalyses on randomly selected trials. It occurs to me that these trials may have been subjected to reanalysis precisely *because* there were doubts about the initial analysis.

Now all my MP3s sound like the Chipmunks!

Automated driving systems DO NOT need to be foolproof.

They need to be very close to foolproof at the very least. Your point is logically unassailable, but alas, logic doesn't enter into it. It'll be assailed in courts of law, and in public opinion. Every accident that happens will be the fault of the autpilot, and the fact that the autopiloted cars have less accidents will be irrelevant.