The problem is it can be unclear what is meant, or if something is being implied, when people start throwing in synonyms for no real reason. We're not all experts in the field, so when a summary throws in two terms - especially one which, in common usage, often implies a deliberate act (a detonation being the initiation of an explosion) - it's not unexpected that some people might find it confusing - even if all it does is raise suspicion that there might be some extra meaning for the differentiation that's escaping the reader.

It's bringing peace! Don't let it get away!

Break its legs!

This, sir, is a pavilion!

Well, maybe, but how would I know?

Oh god. And it's also Roko's Basilisk.

Why is it obvious?

Also, "don't" does not mean "never will."

For a particular definition of "aware" which seems rather circular, perhaps. Is a robot which can hear the name of an object being spoken, identify that object within it's visual field and pick it up with a robot hand aware of its surroundings? It's certainly capable of acting as if it is aware - and taken to an extreme, that's about all I can really say about other people.

I'm pretty sure 16:9 TV came first.

is the constants. If your process doubles in the measured quantity in 20 days then you have something that might be worth worrying about (assuming that it won't hit some other limit, so long as that limit isn't you), but if it doubles in 20 years you have some time to consider and prepare. Whenever I see talk about the singularity it seems like the growth people are talking about either has a very short doubling period (which it probably doesn't) or the growth is actually super-exponential (the doubling period itself is chchanging with time).

In either case, innumeracy will be our downfall before the singularity gets us.

X-Wings fly like planes in an atmosphere (come to think of it, they fly like planes in space too). They don't drop vertically and use the wings to steer. So, what's this got to do with X-Wings?

Which bases have you given the numbers of the bases in?

What makes you say that? Why should wider than 16:9 necessarily be "better" for our eyes?

I thought that 16:9 was chosen as the widescreen standard (partially) because it was close to our "natural" viewing range.

Movies are almost always released on DVD/Blu-ray at the same aspect ratio they were in at the cinema.

Yeah, huge difference that.

Is it a gradual increase in awfulness from 0 to 1 between 16:9 and 16:10, or does it jump up when it gets to something like 16:9.375?

In reverse of what? I didn't see anything in any of the articles or the summary about life starting out in these harsh environments.

That might have been the case on Earth, but there may not be any less harsh environments on Europa.

Ignore TFA, because TFA is an idiot. They are, in fact, filled with helium.