Before getting alarmed about numbers with no context, take a look at Charity Navigator. Compare The Wikimedia foundation with your favorite charity and see how they look.

Charity navigator rates the Wikimedia foundation as 4/4 stars. The system they use is quite fascinating: the site is generates the numbers mathematically from non-profit tax filings. What the site doesn't tell you is if the charity is actually doing good work. If a charity's goal is to feed babies to demons, and they do it efficiently, they will get good marks.

Yeah, that is a good counterexample. It's interesting because in both cases you need something else to actually make it work. With stuxnet: a computer to run it on. With the gun design: a 3d printer, plastic, a bullet, and a human to pull the trigger. The stuxnet example is much closer to the code being an actual thing.

It varies based on your electricity source.
That isn't the best article, but the chart makes it very clear how much this varies. Be aware that in many states in the US, you can choose your power provider. So if you really care, pick a power provider who uses mostly renewables.

The article makes the very same mistake that Code Wilson is trying to correct via the law suit. The article says:

No! The code is not a weapon. A blueprint is not a weapon. A drawing is not a weapon.

I used to get that. But as of a few years ago, every line item on the EOB says "Medical Procedure $800, Paid by insurance company $100, ..."

Why didn't she bank unfertilized eggs? Why pre-fertilize them?

They did, but it took years to figure out the dynamics of the matrix.

Before everyone gets upset about data collection: This Supreme Court case is not about Spokeo's data collection. It is about who has the right to sue and under what circumstances. Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of this individual, all it means is that the individual can continue their suit. It is not a ruling for or against Spokeo's data.

How are they painting them? Is that why it takes 2 weeks?

According to John Oliver most people think Edward Snowden is Julian Assange. Oliver did "man-on-the-street" style interviews in New York, asking people who Snowden was. Most people, if they knew the name at all, thought he was "the guy who sold government secrets to Wikileaks."

The report doesn't mention this at all, so I'm not sure what to make of the statistics. If you asked people "Which color is brighter: green or brown" but they had never heard of brown before, you wouldn't be able to draw many meaningful conclusions from it. The report itself doesn't even mention what questions they asked people. There's really just no information here at all.

Electric vehicles have lower maintenance cost as gas vehicles. Hybrid vehicles have the same maintenance cost as gas vehicles.
https://www.cars.com/articles/...
http://www.carsdirect.com/car-...

I was under the false impression that hybrids also had lower maintenance, because of things like regenerative braking. The second article points out that as an advantage, but says it is offset by other things.

Obviously, the wealthy fully-employed robots will buy them!

The summary says that Wikipedia does not have a mobile site. That isn't true. The BBC article linked from TFA actually says:

I just tested the Wikipedia mobile site with their tool and it says "Awesome! This page is mobile-friendly." However, if you feed it wikipedia.org instead of en.m.wikipedia.org it complains that the links are too close together, which is definitely not the case. Even the picture it shows of "How Googlebot sees the page" is quite clear.

Lucas claims this is not a revenge plot.

Good point. I wonder if they would ever actually do this? It's definitely non-trivial, but they may have people with the capability of doing that.