This seems fairly arbitrary. What is the reason it took so long? TFA doesn't really explain that. Initially only a handful of extensions were supported (uBlock Origin among them, thankfully),but some essential extensions such as Cookie Autodelete were missing. It seems Mozilla simply flipped a switch three years later to allow other extensions.

The good thing is that the placement of address bar can be configured. But I wonder for how long?

Probably his parents.
Anyway, looks like the award was for the discovery of the first planet orbiting a solar-like star, so the pulsar system doesn't count.

The planets of the pulsar PSR B1257+12 were discovered before the planets of 51 Peg (1992 and 1994 vs. 1995). So technically they are the first extrasolar planets to be discovered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

No idea why the discovery of Aleksander Wolszczan wasn't awarded.

Looks like he recently changed his mind about that: https://stallman.org/archives/...

So according to https://support.microsoft.com/... it's:

1. Vendor-specific (Lenovo only)
2. Dependent on the amount of memory (systems with less than 8 GB of RAM are affected)
3. Somehow related to Secure Boot (disabling Secure Boot is listed as a workaround)

And all the trouble is caused by patching a web browser (however deeply integrated with the operating system)? What the hell?

That's not news, the websites have been getting fatter and fatter for a very long time now. Maciej Ceglowski calls that "the website obesity crisis", and he gave a very good talk about this problem. Goes into a bit more detail than TFA. The text version is available here: http://idlewords.com/talks/web....

I guess the main reason to use Xmarks instead of Firefox Sync is that it is able to sync between different browsers, not only Firefox to Firefox.

Thank you.

Do you have any evidence of this? I'd like to learn more about that.
A link or two would be nice.

Still wrong, actually it's http://sci-hub.io/

It's noisy data. In the plots in TFA, you'll see that the residuals are expressed in meters per second. Meters! It's at the limit of detection even for our best spectrographs.

It's very hard to work with noisy data. If you work on bad data the results get extremely dependent on methods of analysis. How do you prepare the data? Do you reject outlying measurements before you even get to analysis? If so, how? Why reject *this* point, but leave *that* one? Are you doing any filtering of the data (and how)? Any windowing? Smoothing? There's a lot of tricks you can use to make bad data appear acceptable. But in the end, it's garbage in, garbage out. That other signal can very well be an artifact. Or could be real, but not a planet. Or indeed a planet. We have no way of knowing without getting more observations of better quality (which is difficult and costs a lot of $$$).

On the other hand, if the data is good, then any data analysis method will give you consistent results (provided that the method is used correctly).

The title is "The Twenty-sixth and Last Voyage". According to the Wikipedia, it was never translated.

> He never singled out the US as a specific target
Actually, he did once. In one story from "The Star Diaries" the protagonist travels to the cold war era US by mistake, where he witnesses nuclear attack "duck and cover" style drills and general bomb scare. Lem's satire is quite heavy handed, and I believe he was ashamed of writing it. That story is usually omitted in the reeditions of the book.

If I'm reading TFA correctly, it basically means that stars formed from one molecular cloud have very different metallicities - anywhere between the mean metallicity of the molecular cloud and the "purely metal" extreme. If this is actually true, there may be far reaching implications for the research of stellar clusters. One of the basic assumptions in this field is that all cluster stars created from a given molecular cloud have very similar chemical compositions.