I figured they would power it with hype on Slashdot.

I think this is a simple case of "you break it, you buy it".

Or is the same asteroid making two passes?

"Sorry, my dear Intelligent Kneecap. We've had good times together, but now you know aye too much!"
*BLAM*BLAM*BLAM*
[Drags rest of self away from crime scene.]

'cause they aren't getting our money fast enough yet?

Re #2, Teh Beeb or someone on the telly said that the IPO was already for a front company, 'cause foreigners aren't allowed to own Chinese companies.

Also said some potential investors are shy because it's not clear whether / how long China will tolerate the kind of workaround set up for the IPO.

You beat me to it, 'cause I paused to look it up. He was a woodcutter, not the thieves' leader. The wanted to kill him because he knew how to get their treasure.

Not that that version of the story is particularly reasurring for an IPO either...

s/customer/consumer/

All missiles have civilian applications: governments can use them to blow up civilians, and malcontent citizens who can get their hands on the can use them to blow up governments.

And other governments are always there to provide missiles to the malcontents.

Once it's built it will probably only employee low-paid assembly line workers and some managers.

(Which isn't STEM, but may still be an improvement on the way the USA has been hedded for the past few decades.)

A factory that makes giants.

Anyone can get a sweetheart deal in Nevada. Microsoft and Amazon are already firmly established their.

Nevada's economy is so weak that there was once serious consideration of reverting its rushed statehood.

But dealing with reality is very logical.

If you don't want people to see pictures of you naked, don't take the pictures.
And if you do, don't put them on a computer.
And if you do, don't put them on a computer on the internet.
And if you do, don't put them on someone else's computer on the internet.

If they're out there, someone is going to get them.

Two of which are irrelevant for deciding constitutionally.

And if a higher court has already agreed that what they are using the Patriot Act to justify is constitutional, they need merely cite the case. Otherwise they're just trying to blow smoke up the judges' asses. Or arguing that Appeals Courts' opinions don't matter.

(I wouldn't think either was a good strategy for an argument in an Appeals Court, but maybe they think Appeals Courts' judges are stupid.)

Is this article some kind of joke I don't quite get?

I suspect people put too much emphasis on brain evolution as an explanation for technological innovation. Think how slow innovation would be coming now if the world population was 50,000 and we didn't have writing.

Our ancestors of maybe 10,000 years ago had a material culture closer to the apes than to us, but we probably hyaven't changed much during that period.