I live for my weekly story of yet another new "feature" as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I have been dealing with A-SMGCS data streams from "big boy" systems for the past few months. Identifying everything moving in an airport precinct is a difficult problem. You have radars with all their weaknesses, active transponders with their weaknesses, numerous other potential sensors, a range of motions from stopped to ~200 knots on the ground and in the air, large numbers of obstructions (buildings, other aircraft, terrain, other transmissions...) that reduce raw data quality, human inputs (e.g. notification that an aircraft has been cleared to push back), disagreements about "facts" like what constitutes "airborne" or "landed", unavoidable measurement errors, ... and you have to synthesise a single, cohesive picture that is fit for its purposes (the one's you designed for and the others that have crept in). Above all, the system must improve safety. It cannot fail (usually at all) and certainly not in a way the causes safety issues.

Gravity is promiscuous at the best of times ;)

Seriously though, gravity is quite predictable all the way to the centre of a uniform solid sphere (not that Earth is entirely uniform). In any case, these guys are only going about 19 km down on a 6378 km journey. The vast majority of Earth's mass is still inside their location (all the heaviest stuff having sunk to the core). 19 km is about twice as deep as the deepest ocean trench, and we know gravity is not funky to at least that depth. (19 km is about the height Concorde flew, and gravity was not funky there either.) Pressure, temperature, and chemistry will be a problem long before gravity.

The "moral rights" are the rights held by the author/creator of a work to be identified as the author/creator, that the work will not be falsely attributed to another, and that the work not be used in a way to bring disrepute on the author/creator. These generally cannot be sold. The right to reproduce a work can be sold.

So, for example, the Aboriginal Flag was designed by Harold Thomas. He licensed it to WAM Clothing for use on clothing, and another group for flag production. Moral rights are what prevent WAM from claiming they, or Krusty the Clown, created the emblem. WAM, on several occasions, enforced the exclusivity of this license against the uses of the emblem on clothing. This license, in the minds of some, meant the flag was not "free". The government has essentially bought the rights to the use of the emblem on clothing from WAM, and some other rights from Harold Thomas. Unlike the US, this does not make anything "public domain" and, as is de rigueur for the present government, they have oversold the "freedom" involved. No permission is required for non-commercial use on clothing, but royalties may still be payable to the government for commercial use. These funds will go into channels that benefit Aboriginal peoples (remains to be seen).

The whole thing is a mess.

Like the ssh client that is included in Windows 10, and enabled by default since circa 2018, with an equivalent command line interface experience to telnet.

Here's the upside. You are on a voice call to 112/911 for a trauma. The operator currently has to ask you to verbally describe the wounds in order to assess which, if any, is life threatening. People are notoriously bad at this, often because they are directly involved and shocked. A photo or short video of each major injury could be useful in prioritising the response and also guiding a first-aid response. A continuous stream of someone involved in the trauma could be used to determine if a response needs to be escalated or changed at time passes. The first responder(s) can send in imagery that can be passed, or made available, to the receiving medical centre(s). Lots of useful reasons.

As for the butt-text and pranks. The system could be designed to only accept SMS/MMS from a number that is currently on a voice call to 112/911, or from a number associated with an active incident, or from numbers pre-registered as, for example, belonging to someone with a disability that impacts on the ability to use voice. That is, the voice communication remains the primary first contact and everything else follows. In any case, the emergency services often have access to the phone or phone system's idea of its location (GPS if available), which makes pranking a more traceable proposition.

The qualifying attribute of "The L'Oreal-UNESCO for Women in Science International Awards" is that the recipients are, "rewarded for their important contributions to the progress of science, either in Life sciences or in the fields of Physical sciences, Mathematics and Computer science." Are you saying that the UK should not try to attract such simply because they are women? Would you apply the same criteria to Nobel Prize winners, about 97% male, because the UK already has a great collection of cocks?

Judged by the colour of its waste products? I thought that was a more pleasing Cherenkov blue in the spent fuel holding tanks

470MW to "power approximately one million homes". UK homes must be truly miserly electricity consumers at approximately 470 watts per home.

In Rolls Royce's 2017 SMR brochure, the figure was 220-440MW. Marketing inflation is alive and well, but the 470MW figure seems roughly consistent. I guess there's an unstated, "ten reactors per power station," assumption. At 2 billion per SMR they come in around the 20 billion mark, just like derided figure attached to "large scale nuclear."

Non-fungible Token. Prepare to enter a world of make believe if you research further.

Maybe Unimatrix Zero? Brought to you by another ruthless mob

For me it does help the web page that the AC linked carries the classic red flags: a block in which they account for the number of Tweets, blogs mentions, Facebook pages, number of news outlets, Reddit mentions, videos, and reads in a proprietary reader. There is some citation info if you dig a little. I had to dig a lot more to find mention of peer review.

And what of their children or other impaired adult dependents? They have no ability to seek out and digest the information to make an informed decision for themselves. Are they getting what they deserve when a guardian denies them access to measure that might save their life? Or worse, when the guardian "treats" them with some frankly dangerous rubbish they got from the interwebs? Happy to let them die a preventable death?

You ask, "At what point do we treat people like adults and let them make their own decisions?" The answer is almost always; when those decisions do not deliberately and negatively impact others. We could punish these transgressions after-the-fact but, as they say, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

While the GPL does require source to be available, neither GPLv2 nor v3 requires source code to be released at the same time, in the same place, or using the same medium as the binary. Your argument conveniently excludes the other two options that a distributor has to choose from. Here's the whole clause (emphasis mine):

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Using option (b) all that a distributor needs to do is publish an offer to deliver the source on request, and live up to their promise. They can even charge for it. Option (c) would not be available to Samsung.

On the Samsung S10E I have here, the offer is the very first document listed under "About Phone > Legal Information > Open Source Licenses" on the phone itself. It directs you to https://opensource.samsung.com... in the first instance (lookup by model) but also offers physical delivery. The offer is good for three years from last device shipment. There is a ~400MB bundle of source just asking to be downloaded. I cannot comment on whether this source bundle is complete.

The Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2 only. So, what software is Samsung distributing is in violation of GPLv3?