Sorry, let me clarify what I was trying to say there.

Advertising battery capacity or gas tank capacity in miles is an entirely reasonable metric for a car, because a car is the complete package. You'll have some variation depending on how fast you drive, how much you use regenerative braking, how much you have to use the heater, headwinds versus tailwinds, hills, whether you're towing (where applicable), etc., but there are standards for how to calculate MPG in a reproducible way, and as long as everyone follows those standards, you can use the MPG numbers to compare one car against another and have some confidence that the more efficient car will be more efficient for you.

And because the tank and/or battery capacity is also a known quantity, you can multiply the number of gallons times the EPA MPG rating (or equivalent numbers from your choice of country) and get a number of miles that you can also use to compare the expected range of two vehicles. And while you might get more or less range than the rated number, if one car has a higher stated range, chances are it will have a higher actual range for you (unless the numbers are very close).

Range in miles is an entirely unreasonable metric for a battery, because a battery is not a complete package, and a battery in one vehicle could last an order of magnitude longer than the same battery in a different vehicle (e.g. Prius versus Tesla semi). Without normalizing the range numbers to a specific vehicle, comparing two battery packs using miles as a metric tells you approximately nothing other than that the stated numbers are different numbers. It's a nonsensical comparison.

And even if you do normalize it to a specific car, it would be an arbitrary normalization that doesn't reflect the real world, making the numbers far less useful than just giving kWh or gallons, which everyone who owns an EV or an ICE car can pretty much instantly understand relative to their own vehicles' capabilities.

It will happen. The question is "Will it continue to be legal?".

Why would I want a workalike of Windows? (I haven't used it for over two decades now, so I'm not sure. Linux is superior to the MSWindows that I remember...and it doesn't force updates at their convenience rather than mine.)

You don't have a solid sphere, you have collectors in multiple orbits differing not only in height, but also in angle WRT the plane of rotation of the star. You build it piece by piece, and it's working from the time the first piece is put into orbit. But I really prefer topopolis, which is also built piece by piece, and is easier to get around in. (In the Dyson sphere variation all the pieces need to be separate...which is a real problem. Of course, one could do a cross between the two, and have multiple topopolis instances in slightly different orbits and at slightly different angles.)

In both cases the trick is to use a design where you can start with just one piece, and expand from there.

Either way, miles isn't, because it's an arbitrary metric. Is that Prius miles (as little as 180 Wh per mile) or Cybertruck miles (800 Wh per mile while towing)?

What's the population size that these 10 are extracted from? In an above post it's claimed that one was a guy that studies meteorites, and another was a nuclear physicist, so if the that's the range, it implies a pretty large population size.

Given the current government, I don't find that evidence of anything except that somebody in government doesn't like them. Perhaps evidence will show up at the trial, if they actually follow through.

They aren't bullshit concepts, but they also aren't even nearly practical now. Give it time. The Dyson sphere (practical variation) would need at least several centuries to be practical, and even then I think topopolis is a better approach, but it's not a bullshit concept. The "space AI" probably needs sustained space-based industry to become practical, and that, itself, has a few problems to overcome, but it's reasonable eventually.

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.

Try a different USB-C cable. Either that or you have one of the dodgy models of Sandisk SSD that's about to die. Maybe a good time to buy a new one.

But the company providing the technology also has some agency in the matter. How much it's reasonable to argue about,

It's worse than the halting problem, because different cpus will have different errors and error handling.

You mean just like lawyers and programmers?

I wouldn't call that "supporting". He plays the game by donating to both sides, so that whoever wins, they see him as an ally. And in particular, Trump responds to obsequiousness. There is a perception that by giving money, businesses can curry favor. Not saying that doing so is a good thing, but it definitely should not be interpreted as evidence that the business leaders are necessarily in favor of Trump's policies.