The wave-particle duality is not a quantum superposition like you're describing (which would break down under measurement), although the caricatured manner in which we teach it might lead you believe that. It's a little more simple than that.

In our world, we are used to two kinds of things: particles, and waves. We are used to this distinction, and describe most things in one of these manners. Sound is a wave, a billiard ball is a particle, vibrations are waves, bricks are particles. If something is a particle, it has certain properties, like position, size, and shape. If it is a wave, it has certain other properties like wavelength, frequency, and amplitude. In addition, there are some common properties like velocity and direction.

When it came to studying light (and many other quantum stuffs), we can't directly see what it's made of. But we can take measurements of each "puff" of light, and infer its properties that way. When we do this, we notice that puffs of light have some properties which are particle-like, and some which are wave-like. So the term "particle-wave duality" became popular to describe this new material that was behaving simultaneously like a particle and a wave. It doesn't make sense to ask which one it is - a "puff" of light is neither a particle, nor a wave, but a different kind of stuff which has some properties of each.

It remains the case that either my original statement is true, meaning a counter-example for the reliability of fact-based ranking has been identified, or my original statement is false, in which case the statement itself becomes a counter-example because it is widely repeated but incorrect.

Of course we have. The response was deliberately paradoxical. Think about it.

Erm... It was intended to be ironic. Well, paradoxical, technically. Compare my final sentence

with the classic "This statement is false".

If my statement were true, it would illustrate a problem with Google's proposal.

But as my statement is false, it is itself a demonstration of the problem, because it perpetuates a myth sufficiently popular that it even has its own Wikipedia page. I was a little surprised that I couldn't also find it on Snopes.

Anyway, it's disappointing that no-one seems to have noticed that. Were none of you even a little suspicious about a post that in one paragraph said "Just because something gets repeated a lot, that doesn't make it factually correct" and then repeated one of the most popular myths there is? Really?

Ah, yes, an excellent follow-up, presented with great subtlety: any writing that makes its point through hyperbole, analogy, figurative imagery, or indeed any other style that isn't literally, objectively, factually, 100% correct could also suffer. Well played, fellow Slashdotter.

"Fact optimization" is already behind more than one multi-billion dollar industry: advertising, political lobbying...

And this is why I fear this initiative, no matter how well intentioned, is doomed to failure. Just because something gets repeated a lot, that doesn't make it factually correct. Moreover, censoring dissenting opinions is a terrible reaction to active manipulation and even to old-fashioned gossip, because it removes the best mechanism for correcting the groupthink and promoting more informed debate, which is introducing alternative ideas from someone who knows better or simply has a different (but still reasonable) point of view.

Remember, not so long ago, the almost-universal opinion would have been that the world was flat.

It doesn't take very many bytes to make one. And your hard drive is communicating over a bus. You'd be surprised what types of communication protocols are recognized over various internal data paths... How do you think those old Ethernet-over-SCSI adapters worked?

So what is wrong with establishing the definition as Criteria 1, Criteria 2, Criteria 3,etc., etc. or objects currently classified as planets? It's not like there aren't other classifications that we ignore if we choose to. We also are in no danger of some intelligent life from another solar system dropping by and saying "What? How is that a planet? It doesn't meet your own criteria!"

Yes, if there had been a large explosion, even if it was not combustion, that amount of earth moving would have been measurable by seismic instruments thousands of miles away. Quarry explosions have been known to display as earthquakes as large as 2.7 on the Richter scale and felt for hundreds of miles, and those would pale in comparison to the amount of earth movement involved in the Siberian craters. It is much more likely that they escaping gas just gradually caused sinkholes, which would still create seismic events, but would be more likely many smaller ones and probably would not pick up on instruments unless they were within 100 miles.

It had better hope so, because giving entire TLDs to specific big companies could easily be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of the rest of the world accepting US-led administration of the general Internet. There's plenty of scepticism already, but organisations like ICANN are tolerated because frankly no-one has much of a better idea or wants to take on the responsibility. However, it is not difficult to think of a better idea than letting big businesses rewrite the established rules in arguably the most important address space in the world today for their own benefit.

Domain squatting is over. I, for one, welcome our new entire TLD squatting overlords. </sarcasm>

Oh, you must not live in the United States where the insurance must cover people with pre-existing conditions. I have not had insurance through my company for years. Well, I did, but not my family. They paid for my coverage. However, it was much cheaper to insure my family on the open market rather than through the employer plan. People seem to have got it in their head that they have to be tied to a company in order to receive health insurance. This has never been the case. Outside coverage has always been available, and it is often cheaper other than whatever part the company covers. These days a lot of companies "offer" an "excellent benefit plan", but when you look at it, you pay 100% of the premium. How is that an "Offer"? You could get the same outside, probably for less money, and not be tied to a particular employer.

And if they tied that education to a job at Microsoft, they would come out ahead, even if they paid industry standard wages.