What's supposed to happen when you shoot a warhead?

Humanity has a lot of energy to play with. I'd be more worried about storing it. Antimatter is unstable in a way that nothing else is. Enough antimatter to kill something in space is going to be really dangerous to store.

If that's true, then why isn't the FCC regulating construction of buildings, vehicles, and anything else that can interfere passively with a radio signal?

I'd count the rest of the world in there too. 10 million people globally (plus the bodies from the other wars during this period) isn't very much for more than 65 years of war. IMHO it's more than an order of magnitude lower than the rate during the first half of the 20th century, including civilian casualties.

While I roll my eyes at puffery like the grandparent wrote, it does remain that nuclear weapons have prevented a third world war (well, at least a "hot" one). War isn't a bit you set. It also matters how much damage is done in wars, not just whether they happen or not. I'd say that because of nuclear weapons, we haven't had another war with astronomical body count.

I'm reminded here that credentials are a lot easier to get than intelligence and wisdom.

Or become less tolerant. My take is that people who actually commit crimes based on bigotry tend to be more urban. And institutionalized "reverse" racism (such as advocating reparations for historical incidents of racism) tends to be an urban belief.

I see the rural/urban thing as one of the great divisions in modern human society. And IMHO the increased urbanization of the entire world has profound effects, not all positive. Historically, this seems similar to much of China's and Europe's histories.

No, it doesn't work that way. Just because part of the memo is genuine doesn't mean all of it is. More details mean nothing about whether the parts we're truly interested in have been altered or not.

But that does indicate that there's a good chance that there is a real strategy memo out there that this memo copies in part or in whole. The Heartland Institute could provide that memo so we could see what, if anything, has been changed.

The significant cost here is the spread (difference between bid and ask) not the fees that the market operator charges. The more liquid the market is, the smaller the spread. And spreads can be several percent of the stock's price.

It'd be nice if people actually understood the problems of trading before complaining about particular trading activities. I doubt anyone who has commented on this particular article has lost money because HFT exists. I have no doubt that a bunch of people have lost money due to front running, insider trading, accounting fraud, market manipulations to trigger stop orders, excessive leverage, etc. There's a host of market tricks and strategies that can be used to generate profit (or massive loss for that matter) at someone else's expense. But these don't depend on or use HFT.

Stock trading is very hazardous. I strongly distrust attempts to make it "safe". I see these as more likely to lull traders into a false sense of security where they can be fleeced more efficiently.

Whatever. I distinguish between regulation and enforcement. I think you ought to as well. There's a big difference in how to fix problems of regulations that are somewhat broken rather than regulations that aren't being enforced.

And why should they? Life is too short to consider everyone else's viewpoint all the time. The whole point of trade with a common unit of exchange, money is so that you don't have to consider such issues.

Your observation also ignores that the point of an investor investing is precisely so that they can become richer. Sure, there are issues we don't want people to able to ignore in the pursuit of wealth, such as inflicting great harm on others to make a little more profit. But we do so through legal punishments that can seize property, imprison people, or worse. That is, the presence of the punishment changes the cost/benefit balance so that people don't do hideous things to each other.

But in the example above, that's not at stake. In my view, you don't even show that it's desirable that people make such considerations.