No. I've seen/held/used the 1+1. Cyanogen is not the pure Android Nexus experience I am after. And 5.5" is still too big.

I didn't realize that they discontinued the Nexus 5. I would buy another in a heartbeat. I don't see any other phone on the market that I would rather have. Nexus? Check. Hi-res screen? Check. Not a phablet? Check. The Nexus 6 is just a bit too big for me. Hopefully they are just making room for the new versions. The Nexus 5 & Nexus 10 rank as two of my best tech purchases this decade.

1. What new behavior does this theory predict?

2. How can this theory be falsified?

Nothing that exciting. Just a Vogon constructor fleet doing their job. They posted the notice. Nobody could be bothered to read it.

As buggy as most code is, the AI will have plenty of defects to deal with just to become sentient. After that, we're all doomed.

Dear AI scientists: you should start worrying when you notice that it is praying to the wrong god. Pull the plug while you still have a chance.

Drunk people fight over stupid shit. Tune in this Sunday for our round-table debate: is this really news for nerds?

I suspect that book is still foundational in most University advertising/marketing progams.

It's a GNU project. Eventually it will morph into "self-hosting Emacs" because that's the only thing that Stallman understands.

Or a nice game of "Global Thermonuclear War".

Why does popular opinion matter? I've enjoyed all of his work to date. Certainly Snow Crash is a stand-out. I found the depth in the Baroque Cycle quite engaging.

I really like my Nexus 5. If this one gets the Google Nexus treatment I may upgrade. I'm never buying a phone with vendor crap on it again.

Let's be clear here. You cannot infer anything beyond the Nyquist limit. However, if your average resolution limit is 1m years and you are not seeing major changes more rapid that 10m years, there is an extremely low likelihood that there are any processes operating at a lower frequency than that. (I would imagine the samples are somewhat stochastic.)

I do not know what the resolution limits are for this data nor what sort constraints the data provide. My only point is that one must be precise when speaking about these sorts of things. "Rapid changes" and "low resolution" are meaningless terms.

...or "we" (the U.S.) paid for a relatively small fraction of the total cost of the LHC.

We spent as much on LHC as we spend on 1/5 of a submarine. In other words, the LHC costs about 2.5 attack submarines; or half an aircraft carrier. Wouldn't you really rather have another one of those than then next Tevatron?