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.

s/server/service/

You mean like how I can't get warranty repair on my Dell because I'm nowhere near Texas? Oh wait, I can. Hell, I can get the tech to come right out to my office and do it on-site, I don't have to take it anywhere. Funny what happens when there's a competitive marketplace, and the ease or difficulty of getting service and support is something consumers consider. Or were you imagining a scenario where car buyers worry less about server than computer buyers? Cars are so cheap, after all. Oh wait...

One wonders how long it will be until it's entirely represented in Elite: Dangerous. :)

Valve/Steam? And are we really comparing a kickstarter project to a powerhouse of the gaming industry? This is a bit like noting a number of minor manufacturers people never heard of failed to gain any marketshare in the early MP3-player market, therefore it was folly to expect Apple to succeed. Of course, Apple had the advantage of pairing their new devices with an online distribution service for content, whereas Valve... oh, wait...

Ah, the No True Scotsman logical fallacy...

Clue tip: If something appears to make little sense, you probably missed something. Your immediate response to that should be, "what am I missing?", not "okay, these professional scientists must be idiots who don't understand the topic they have Ph.D.s in as well as I do". Appeal to authority is bad, of course, but if you find yourself at odds with an expert, it should at least prompt a bit of self-critical examination to double-check where you might have missed something that, if you hadn't, would have made it all make sense. Like here, where the point of what they're doing is to determine a heck of a lot more than simply what the foreground process is, but rather, what the foreground process is doing.

For some specific individuals, yes. For "private citizens" in general, no. The citizens as a whole have the exact same amount of money either way. The government doesn't take the money from taxes and bury it in a hole somewhere, it spends it, usually on employees that are predominantly citizens, or companies that are usually located within the same country. Indeed, money spent by the government is more likely to be spent on in-country companies that money spent by non-governmental organizations. The idea that the people have less money when taxes are higher is absurd. They money is redistributed, not eliminated. The people as a whole have the same amount of money regardless of whether taxes go up or down.