Ahh, the "we just need to educate our users" school of engineering. That always ends well.
Clearly the solution is to put a fountain in the security exit corridor to trap screen-lookers before they can cross the security line!
New world is coming.
Eventually. But for now, he's right - Tesla is currently a niche company, only selling expensive vehicles. Most such brands like, say, Maserati, are just brands within a larger mainstream company - Maserati is just the mid-priced Fiat brand. Tesla though only sells the expensive cars, and so remains on the fringe for now.
If the Model 3 succeeds, this could all change. And while Tesla's stock price already assumes the Model 3 will be a resounding success and Tesla will become a mainstream company, it hasn't happened yet.
Heh, seems I'm wrong about the fungi - randy little buggers.
Technically, "evolution" is the change in statistical distribution of alleles in a genetic population over time. There's little uncertainty about that happening - every genetic change over time is absolutely evidence of evolution, in the technical sense, because there's nothing more to it than that.
Any uncertainty is about what shaped the emergence, then dominance, of certain traits among species that survived today. But of course in the case of sexual reproduction with distinct sexes, it's still a reproductive corner case only used by a small percentage of the biomass of the planet (and heck, only plants and animals do it in any form, while most of the biomass is found in the other kingdoms).
there's the question of how the rather non-Occamy process of sexual reproduction came into existence in the first place.
Is that really much of a mystery? Gene exchange as part of reproduction has obvious advantages for speed in adaption to changing conditions. There are plenty of hermaphrodite species that show the stepping stone to specialized organs for gene exchange. Splitting into 2 sexes, each with just one set of reproductive organs, is just a cost savings, reducing the amount of otherwise unneeded organs to maintain.
My dealer offers "free" loaner cars, so I don't wait. Of course, that's quite an expensive free rental, but it is convenient. "Valet service" is a thing now at some luxury dealerships, too (they come get your car, do the work, bring it back). But that's all only if you're not watching the price.
Wait, who's president again? I thought we had taken a break from rich old white men? (You forgot Protestant, BTW.)
You have quite a warped view of "shoving you religion down everyones throat", when right now today there's a group of brutal thugs who have declared themselves a government and are raping and murdering anyone they feel like, with religion as their excuse. Anyone with the wrong religious beliefs executed at a whim.
If you want to complain about someone blinded by religion in this century, look at those who distributed a beheading video just this week just for fun, and make wholesale mockery of their own religion through their actions. Right now there are places where teaching girls to read is illegal, but go ahead geekoid, get upset about this shit instead.
There has to be more to it than the question, because you can trivially ask it of every theory ever. The paper at least brings something new, pointing to detailed inconsistencies in the theory - it has lots of actual work behind it. Just babbling on about "it might be this or that" doesn't.
Leonard Susskind is famous (as physicists go) for making outlandish claims every five years or so, which then later turn out to be true. But of course it's the latter part that makes his claims interesting, and as he's said "maybe that's because I spend those 5 years working on the problem first". There's a lot being debated about black holes.
Debates/controversies between the likes of Susskind and Hawking are interesting, because you know they've brought deep understanding to the problem before asking the questions. But the internet is chock full of people who are convinced that they've found the flaw in relativity or QM, and most of them bring as much to the discussion as the Time Cube guy, and make about as much sense.
Are you sure there aren't any cgi scripts on that corporate webserver that devs had to touch that one time to debug that thing?
Fortunately for the SSH case, most multi-tenanted servers these days are using VM-isolation, not user isolation, but privilege escalation exploits of one sort or another do show up as a problem on those web hosts with 10000 accounts, where someone uses the setup to push malware from their account to all the served web pages. Hopefully none of those places still give SSH access!
I'm fairly certain that we can come up with an acceptable definition of the "press" - though I don't pretend to be smart enough to be the one to do that.
The SCOTUS this year specifically considered and rejected that exact argument. There's not going to be a good definition that hold as media evolves over time. Plus, how does limited liability matter here? When people pool their money to buy advertising time to advance their political views, why should limited liability restrict fundamental rights? What's the compelling interest of the state there that couldn't be served without that restriction?
We've (indirectly) observed some of objects consistent with our theories of how black holes would behave
That right there is all of modern science. Science hasn't been about direct observation with one's senses for quite some time now. Pretty much all of physics these days is "if we measure X repeatedly this hypothesis predicts distribution Y of values" When Y is observed, the hypothesis is taken seriously as a theory. That's all there ever is. There's almost nothing left to measure directly. (E.g., you wouldn't believe how indirect the evidence for the Higgs Boson is - far more so than for black holes - but the likelihood of the measurements predicted by theory to have occurred at random are quite small indeed).
Moreover, as I recall there is more than a little controversy as to whether supermassive black holes could actually form and grow in a manner consistent with prevailing theory, as opposed to having been formed in the early moments of our universe, or through some yet-to-be-theorized process
Perhaps you misunderstand how science works? There's always the possibility that the leading theory is wrong, for everything. That possibility is uninteresting. A hypothesis that makes specific predictions that the current understanding doesn't is interesting. Measurements that the current theory fails to explain are interesting. "But what if it's wrong?" isn't.
the general trend toward making corporations more and more like people
That's a misunderstanding. There's a general principle that any law that applies to "person or persons" applies to corporations too, which is a good thing. There's also SCOTUS rulings that when a corporation is owned mostly by a small number of people, those people have the same rights as the owners of a partnership would. I don't see a problem with that either (remember, partnerships and sole proprietorships can also have limited liability, it's not something specific to corporations).