Yes, imagine that! Police protecting everyone in society no matter of the scale of the crime and not just couple of high net worth individuals. What a waste of good police officers on the riffraff and 76 old grannies.

"add="ad" damn my spelling!

Am I correct in thinking that the function of the "lock screen platform" is to shove adds in your face using your personal device? Someone has smeared so much tech-bro mumbo-jumbo in that article that it takes a lot of effort to penetrate what actually they are selling. Otherwise I am all for a "lock screen platform" that is "surface-first innovation driven" and serves "w.r.t. innovation in AI " to "drive user engagement". Who wouldn't be?

Elon said Tesla will have a fix for the auto-wipers on their cars in two months. This was two years ago. Elon says a lot of things. Some of them are engineering stuff that eventually may happen albeit not on his timeline. Stuff that involves living an a human society like dealing with other humans, regulations, democracy and freedom of speech is foreign to him. Anything Elon says that involves other humans should be taken with a huge grain (aka rock) of salt. On one hand we have the issue with regulation and certification that not going to resolve themselves simply because Elon said so. On the other, you have the issue with humans vandalizing and abusing the driverless robotaxis because they compete with taxis/ridesharing, because they hate Elon, or simply because they can.

How about not putting cherry picked data out of context? When you ask about doing somydid you actually look into the trends like in the same EPA site you quote? The mix has changed dramatically over the past years replacing coal with renewables and much cleaner gas. So yes an EV will help a lot with improving air quality, simply due to how electricity generation is changing. But the law is not about EBs. It does not care why are you drive. It only cares how much pollutants it releases. If you like nuclear you are free to drive a nuclear powered car. And let's not confuse liberty wth free far all. There is no right to harm others or to throw trash on their property. You are free however to vote for your government. In the US as in any other democracy the government is you. If you don't like it go and vote to change it.

What is this post labeled "Troll". He is asking the first question that needs to be asked in situation like that. How exactly people identify micro plastics? If the method makes sense than the next question should be about contamination. The micro plastics stories become more and more bizarre as it seems there isn't a place in the world that they cannot be found.

Oops mixed up 5G with LTE

This is indeed a nice sounding quip. The problem with that wonderful sounding sentence is that it is not true. I travel every year to EU visiting couple of countries and I readily get 5G. I was in Germany 5 years back and 5G connectivity was fine, only occasionally dropping to 4G service. Mind you I was using roaming service (Google Fi), so some of that may have been issues with the roaming.

I love how the article claims that a competitive market is bad. Somehow more carriers in the EU market that invest larger portion of their revenue into their networks than US carriers (three times lower prices, but just two times less investment) is a bad thing. The amount of investment also depends on the density of the population. You need less investment to cover the same number of people if they live closer together. This is standard WSJ fare, where greed and rent seeking are masqueraded as "free market" and facts are twisted to fit the narrative.

There is speculation (in Russian) that this is self inflicted and the outage is a result of efforts to establish national DNS server in Russia and route all DNS requests from within Russia through it.

The NIH review process goes in two stages. First the science of the proposal is evaluated and all proposal are ranked. The NIH decides which proposal to fund based on their evaluations, the available funds, and any other considerations or priorities they may have. Usually the scientific evaluation is the factor that hold most weight. The people from the Dog Aging Project have seen their evaluations and realized they are not that good. What they are doing now is put pressure on NIH before the final decision is made (usually this is in February). The evaluation part involves three independent reviews followed by a discussion by a dozen or so scientists that are experts in the field. The reviews and summary of the discussion are provided back to the applicants. If they are going to complain that their funding is not being extended for another 5 year period, they should post the summary statement. The summary statement may hold some insights as to why NIH was advised that the proposal has deficiencies.

... what happens if the developer can dream up only nightmares?

Did you mean taxid you Homo sapiens Linnaeus, taxid:1758? BTW what is the plan about that Linnaeus dude. His name is slapped on half of the plant and animal species?

No wander he needs to retract, he messed up in which millennia he needs to publish. He is yet to run the experiments.

May I suggest a shortcut perfectly suited to Elon. Instead of trying to understand the universe we live in which we live in, which may or may not be possible, why not create your own universe? This way by virtue of being its creator you would fully understand it or at least have a plausible claim that you do.

The ban was written so broadly that it would disrupt a lot of industries. It banned anything that contained any substance that may be harmful not taking into account the substance concentration or the amount of product that the consumer can conceivably use. Examples are plant extracts like rose oil or vanilla extract. These inevitably contain at least one substance that is harmful at a particular dose. However they are never used in doses that the can cause detectable harm even after a prolonged usage. So the effect of the legislature was that it would completely disrupt certain industries some of which took centuries to build. It would cause also a lot of uncertainty. At what point would alcohol be banned? They point to fluorinated organic compounds to justify it, but the logic is so broad that if applied rigorously it will ban any substance.