I suspect it's more hubris than outright stupidity: he's capricious; but Trump sometimes permits others to feast on the little people as well, when it suits him. I suspect that our gentleman here had no expectation that the dealings would be honest; but was hoping that they would be partners in crime against people who don't matter.

It will be morbidly interesting to see how his 'attempt to seek justice through the courts against someone whose lawlessness he has bene abetting' plan will work out for him.

Well, first of all, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, and carbon makes up something like 0.5% of the total observed mass of the universe (it's the fourth most common element), so along with other trace elements like sodium, phosphorus and the like, we're simply looking for places where there is sufficient energy to create the necessary reactions to produce organic compounds. No lack of energetic sources, in particular stellar system formation. Indeed many comets and asteroids host a lot of precursors, indicating that some fairly sophisticated organic chemistry was going on early in the solar system's development.

Panspermia would require that life itself was raining down on the terrestrial planets. Precursors would simply indicate there were a lot of strange and complex organic compounds falling on to the surfaces of planets like Earth, Mars and Venus, and were also likely constituents of bodies like Europa and Titan (well, we know Titan is covered in a literal hydrocarbon stew). What this discovery indicates, at the very least, is there was indeed a lot of organic compound in the early solar system and these organic compounds, at least on Earth, led to abiogenesis. Panspermia would advocate abiogenesis happened at some undetermined point further back.

If we find other life in the solar system, such as in Europa's or Ganymede's oceans, and it has DNA or some very close relative, with similar translation and transcription systems as we find in archaea and bacteria on Earth, then that would be a very strong argument that life in the solar system had a common origin. If however, there is no clear relationship between the two populations; say, they use something similar to DNA, but the genetic codes are different (all extant life on Earth uses the same canonical genetic code mapping codons to amino acids, strongly suggested the canonical code evolved prior to the Last Universal Common Ancestor), then we're very likely looking at an example of convergent evolution, and not in fact at two related populations.

I suspect that he's neither the first nor the last who are genuinely quite eager to see more 'equity participation' in some of the big bot shops; given that they've burned through all the VC they can get and even the dumb money is starting to get nervous. Retail bagholders and state investment under the guise of benevolence would be just the thing.

What is much less clear is whether the same amount of interest will be present once current investors take enough of a haircut that the remainder is actually worth something, or one or more of them actually start turning a profit.

It's kind of surprising how little press coverage Artemis has gotten. People flew around the moon.

Seriously? Turn your brain on. You can think better than that.

I can accept art as communication, but how do you consider it dialogue? A dialogue requires the listener to respond in some way, it's a two way communication. How is the listener answering back to the artist?

The people who don't have a problem with it aren't complaining.

It's clearly not real, but cartoons are also clearly not real. And we enjoy cartoons.

Everything you said is right, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion. Yes, actors have lots of skills. But that doesn't answer the question:

If AI can do the job of an actor, why would acting deserve special protection from automation?

WLM = Windows Live Mail

A good idea would be to create a "peace department" to balance the war department, one that puts serious resources into studying peace and how to make it a reality.

Currently Trump is enacting a non-violent approach (blockading Iranian shipping) so I don't know why you are confused by this.

You can just leave it there, because compared to you, the BBC is a beacon of objectivity. You are biased.

You do realize that no normal person understands what point your post is trying to make, right?

You're supposed to say, "If you gaze into Sam Altman's orb, it will save the children!" No one cares about scalpers, think of the children.