Well, for the most part, it's not liquid.

It's called "space cheese", and you can't ruin the Star Wars universe by adding more cheese, because the entire thing was made of cheese to begin with! It's kinda its whole schtick.

Yes, but, as has been pointed out, that's because SW is a very good fit for JJ Abrams' style. This kinda drives that home.

The mission did not fail in most of its stated objectives. By definition that makes it a success.

It's not a complete success, and we can learn from what failed to attempt to design future missions to avoid these particular failure modes, and while we can lament the failures that did occur, we cannot truly call the mission as a whole a failure.

There is no such contract. When you back any project on Kickstarter, you're agreeing to fund the game and (if it was part of the package) receive a copy when it's done. There's no contract for specific features, things can change in development, and all you're guaranteed to receive is the game when it's done, with whatever feature set it ultimately ends up with. Programs often don't have the exact feature set on completion as they were estimated to have at the start of a project, so they make sure their estimated feature set is not set in stone as part of any contract.

In any case, the game still supports single-player mode. It just requires an internet connection, since it's getting data from the servers as it goes.

That's the way progress is best made: by standing on the shoulders of giants.

...and all the researchers involved are from the same planet as Pons and Fleischmann, too! Surely this is significant.

Not at all. His message is, if you think it's real, then start doing science! He doubts it's real because the people who claim it is refuse to even try actual science -- you know, that thing where you document experiments and publish with sufficient levels of detail that allow the results to be independently verified.

Even if you think it's real, you have to admit that what they're doing is not science. Or at least, you have to admit that if you're honest and know what "science" is. It might be invention, but it absolutely isn't science.

Sort of, but most of it's waste energy. Show me a process where the amount of power you receive back into the power-grid from setting off an H-bomb is greater than the energy you used constructing it...

Ah, yes. One of Heinlein's most unrealistic, least believable premises ever, and that's saying a lot.

Meanwhile, in the real world, your invention will be reverse-engineered in a matter of months if not sooner.

Then you write your systemd log in text format. If you can't figure out how to do that, you're not qualified to be reading the log file output.

It takes less space, especially if you're archiving them for long periods, causes less I/O in general and less disk fragmentation over time as you compress and delete them every day/week. Note that indeed, you do the same on most classic BSD or SysV init systems by compressing the old logs, requiring you to use a tool to dump them to text if you want to read them later... but that's not as efficient.

Do you turn off the compression of logs on your boxes, or do you admit that having to use a tool to read them isn't so big a deal when you aren't grasping at straws to justify why you hate a particular piece of software?

Well, there is a darker side. It's just not always the same side.

Depending on how you define "life", yes. In fact, almost certainly, regardless of which definition of "life" you choose. Selection can occur in any kind of chemical or physical process in which produces similar but not always identical results. There's nothing special about the particular chemical processes we call "life", nor some magic line in the sand you can draw and say "this is life, and this isn't" -- it gets rather fuzzy on the edges, and the distinction between life and other chemical processes is as arbitrary as the distinction between which celestial bodies we decide to call "planets" and which we decide don't qualify. Nature doesn't care much for our arbitrary distinctions.

You can tell people at a company are speaking from a place of privilege when they assert that using real names will reduce bullying/make people safer/etc. For many of us, using real names pretty much guarantees bullying and danger, and quite possibly even threatens our lives. From Blizzard, it really takes the cake. Like I'm going to put my life in jeopardy for the sake of a video game. And even if the threats aren't serious, many people would just rather avoid the hate and abuse to begin with, even if it's "only" verbal/emotional abuse. Some people use anonymity as a weapon, but most of us use it as a shield. Congrats for those lucky enough to not need it, but understand we're not all so lucky. Removing it just further marginalizes those who aren't privileged enough to be safe without it.

People always think the world is currently going to Hell around them, even while living in a golden age.