Do these chemicals pose an actual, realized risk? Or do they only present risk on models or in lab environments, and they're extrapolating?

How many annual deaths can be directly attributed to these chemicals - as in, these chemicals were the root cause of death?

Understood, but I don't think this is a good example of them shaking off their 'different' moniker. There are much better examples such as the paring of basic research, indifference to user's privacy and degradation of the search engine.

Wanting your co-workers to follow some basic rules of decency is hardly authoritarian.

As far as I am concerned, not being subjected to political BS and protest at work is the not evil option.

What are you arguing for here? What if you are a Jewish national working on Google's campus. These people would make me extremely uncomfortable. Would it okay for someone with KKK ties to protest diversity? There is no way to decide what is a good thing to protest, so there shouldn't be any of it.

For a lot of people, and a lot of use cases, it's the right tool for the right job.

But American users, too, would keep their freedom to choose what apps to run (including TikTok) if they could just download their own software to the iPhone. It's only Apple's control-freakery that enables this interference by governments. In 2000 the idea of banning a piece of software would have seemed unenforceable. Even if you block its main download site, anyone could download a copy from somewhere else. We live in a much less free world now, and that's mainly thanks to the efforts of companies like Apple to strip users of control over their own computing devices.

Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Apple has spent years building a tightly controlled walled garden and blocking any way for users to choose for themselves what software to run on their device. Only very recently (in the EU) have regulators started to push for greater openness. But of course, if Apple creates a locked-down device with total control, authoritarian governments will want to take that control for themselves -- and Apple, "obeying local laws" has no way to refuse those demands.

If your iPhone allowed you to download and install your own software, and not just as some special concession in certain markets but as the normal way it works, then it would be much harder for China or other countries to block particular apps.

And yes, there are certainly arguments in favour of a walled garden, for banking apps or for movie playback with DRM or for corporate paranoia about employee devices. And arguments against it too. It's not my intention to open a big discussion on those right now, just to note that Apple is getting a taste of its own medicine.

Outside of the /. crowd

Sometimes I wonder why this particular website bothers to cover issues related to that particular crowd. They're such an insignificant minority!

There hasn't. And as far as using current US military doctrine as a bench mark.... well that's on you.

Anybody driving four to five hours without taking a half hour break is, in fact, doing it wrong, and actively endangering themselves, and others.

I was thinking the same thing... it would be very costly to have an advanced supersonic swarm that would never be re-usable, but instead a swarm where one or two of them would be happy to kamikaze to bring the target down.

I don't think Vietnam is in play any more, there have been many more engagements with more modern aircraft and missiles in Ukraine, how many of them have involved dogfights?

Because that is the way the jet is designed.... everything is a tradeoff. Without having to support a human and targeting higher Gs the air frame would be different.

I find it sadly funny that people will say 'human activity can't alter the climate, and besides, we know humans are altering the climate with cloud seeding, chem trails, and the HAARP weather control lasers!'