I've seen no evidence that anyone considers Astroscale, Orbit Guardians, ClearSpace, Morpheus Space, etc, to be military threats.

Let's see... how many countries has the U.S. invaded over the last 20 years? How many has China invaded? Who's the sketchy guy in this scenario?

We want the Chinese to clear their junk out of orbit, just like we want everyone else to clear their junk out of orbit. The double standard here is about as subtle as a kick to the groin. Northrop-Grumman, a U.S. company, demonstrated a similar capability in April -- docking with a satellite to refuel it -- and nobody took this for an ominous development. And there are several U.S. and European companies developing vehicles to de-orbit space junk, with absolutely nobody intimating that this is some sort of grave threat.

As long as management pushes the umpteenth pointless UI remake over actually fixing bugs, this kind of thing will continue to happen.

If you lie to Federal authorities it is a serious offense with heavy penalties. Yet if they lie to you, well, that just happens sometimes; get used to it.

"He said that the military didn't really know what they wanted these big bombs for, but they figured that if the Soviets thought they were a good idea, then the US should have one, too"

Switch "US" and "Soviets" and that pretty much sums up why the Soviets built their own Space Shuttle.

This claim is from a study published in the CDC's publication, "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report." I can guarantee you that anything showing up in a weekly report hasn't gotten a careful, full-blown peer review. If you want something that's gone through the full peer review process, here's one:

A Systematic Review of the Protective Effect of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Repeat Infection

"The weighted average risk reduction against reinfection was 90.4% with a standard deviation of 7.7% (p-value: 0.01)."

The CDC note is almost certainly wrong given this, as the vaccines would have to be 98% effective to be 5 times better than natural immunity at preventing infection, and we all know they're nowhere close to that effective.

Whoever wrote that headline has a warped epistemology and does not understand how science works. What brought about the scientific revolution? It wasn't the creation of authoritative bodies charged with deciding The Truth on certain topics. Those had existed for millennia. It was the scientific method and, crucially, the open interchange of information. Without the freedom to openly challenge any scientific claim made by anyone, science cannot advance.

It can take a long time for the science to be truly settled, and official bodies, influenced by politics and personal biases of the top leadership, can easily get it wrong. For decades the FDA wrongly promoted low-fat diets that ended up increasing obesity and heart disease, because of the views of one influential person, despite a lack of quality evidence for those views. Government officials wrongly told Americans that masks were of no use in preventing the spread of Covid, and insinuated they were even harmful. We were told that it was absolutely impossible that the Covid pandemic could have originated in a lab leak, and now that is a leading hypothesis for its origin.

Worse yet, officialdom often peddles indisputable misinformation itself. Consider this article on the CDC website: New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection. The headline is a lie. The study does not compare the protection provided by natural immunity from previous infection to the protection provided by vaccination. It only evaluates the additional protection vaccination may provide to those who already have natural immunity. Both groups of subjects in the study are people who had previously recovered from Covid.

In contradiction of the CDC's misinformation, there are several studies that show natural immunity to be at least as good as vaccine-induced immunity, maybe better:

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity
"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

Reinfection Rates Among Patients Who Previously Tested Positive for Coronavirus Disease 2019
"Prior infection in patients with COVID-19 was highly protective against reinfection and symptomatic disease. This protection increased over time"

Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection
"Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 948% (CI:[944, 951]); hospitalization 941% (CI:[919, 957]); and severe illness 964% (CI:[925, 983]). Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.”

Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
"Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination”

This is what the "fact checkers" call misinformation -- technically true but misleading. US population in 1918 was 103 million; today it is 333 million. So the per capita rate for Covid is still far below what is was for the Spanish Flu.

Wow. Just gonna openly parade your bigotry around like like that? How would you react to a man making a similar comment about women?

Swap the Sexes -- imagine Holmes is a man and he's blaming everything on his girlfriend, who he claims was psychologically and emotionally abusive. Would you believe him?

If you think the real Holmes could be telling the truth but not our sex-swapped Holmes, you're a female chauvinist.

If you think only men can be psychologically and emotionally abusive, or that it's mostly a male trait, you're a female chauvinist.

"Some protesters in Minnesota set a fire last year."

It's spelled "rioters," not "protesters."

Many of Google's problems, current and recently departed executives said, stem from the leadership style of Sundar Pichai, the company's affable, low-key chief executive.

Affable? Sundar Pichai, the mendacious bastard who lied through his teeth about the contents of James Damore's memo just to show how woke he was? (Pichai falsely claimed that Damore said women were not fit for tech jobs. Read the memo yourself; he never says anything like that.)

Fifteen current and former Google executives [...] told The New York Times that Google was suffering from many of the pitfalls of a large, maturing company -- a paralyzing bureaucracy, a bias toward inaction and a fixation on public perception.

"A fixation on public perception" -- yeah, showing everyone how woke you are is top priority, right?

The SLS was designed to re-use technology originally developed for the space shuttle programme, which ran from 1981-2011.

That's some sleight of hand -- the SLS is designed to re-use "technology"... but, no, it's not designed to re-use any actual hardware. In fact, the SLS takes hardware that was meant to be re-used -- Space Shuttle Main Engines -- uses them ONCE, and then throws them away.

When [Pleasant Grove] asked residents about their broadband, almost two-thirds of respondents said they wouldn't recommend their cable service. Almost 90% wanted the city to pursue broadband alternatives.

I'm dubious about this claim because I live in Pleasant Grove myself, and have for 8 years. Nobody ever asked my opinion, and I'm not aware of any such poll ever happening.