You know what's funny? The big bang theory was resisted by many when it was first proposed, because of the plainly theistic implications of an absolute beginning.

There? I think you'll make it just fine. There and back? Not so sure. It looks like the F150 Lightning Range is about 300 miles with the larger battery pack. Towing a similar sized camper a similar distance last year (with my 3.5L Ecoboost F150), my gas mileage went down to 17 MPG (vs 19 MPG unladen).
So if the lightning's range is impacted by that load in a similar fashion, you're looking at a range closer to 268 miles. That looks about like 4 hours of driving to me, though maybe 5 or 6 on back roads.

(YMMV, literally)

So it's essentially a radar distance-following system with a very accurate (you hope) map.

This is just unbelievably lame.

A Tesla can do those things - even without the self-driving option - but can do it on ANY road.

Add in the self-driving option, and it'll stop at stop lights and stop signs, handle lane changing to pass slow vehicles and to get into the right lane for turning and to avoid roadworks, adjust it's speed if the adjoining lane is going slowly,

My Tesla drove 3,600 miles across the USA and back - pretty much all by itself.

These map-following/distance-maintaining systems are obsolete by at least a decade...time to start pointing this out and not keep telling people that they are amazing new futuristic things.

Your paper proves that you can write a lot without saying much.
First, the author conflates birth defects (intersex) with willful body modification (surgery and hormone treatments). No one is complaining about intersex people. No one. To drag them in to provide cover for what amounts to accusations of cheating is disingenuous.
Second, read all his conclusions. He uses the terms 'may' and 'no evidence' a great deal. He engages in a great deal of speculation than the people who want to ban males from competing against women, but he slathers on some science-talk, which blinds some folks. The people who he argues against have common experience on their side (men are bigger, stronger, faster than women); the author has 'may' and 'no evidence' on his side.
The only actual evidence he offers up is item 51, a small study of 8 long distance runners who have had hormone injections. That's it. That's all his evidence. Everything else is either speculation or a political position.

With SpaceX claiming that they'll shortly be able to launch 100 to 150 tonne payloads into orbit for $2 million - it's time for astronomers to build more space telescopes. With a 9m diameter cargo bay - and with most of the world's greatest telescopes having between 8 and 10m optics - it's clear that a fully capable, fully modern scope could be put into orbit for comparable construction cost to a similar device stuck on a mountain-top in the Atacarma desert (or whatever). They'll soon be able to do that without the need to fold the mirror (a'la James Webb) and without any compromises on mirror diameter. Furthermore, having high bandwidth satellite data streams from the very systems that the astronomers are complaining about - they'll be able to get better use from these machines. No light pollution, no seismic vibration issues, no dust on your optics, no atmospheric twinkling, etc, etc.

Just imagine a version of Hubble with a 9m mirror instead of it's present 2.4m...about ten times the light capturing ability.

Do that - and allow the very low Earth orbit to be used for the greater good of mankind.

This can easily become a win/win proposition...it's just a matter of the interested parties on both sides of the issue getting together to cooperate rather than fighting each other.

So the air is unbreathable and would kill you. The pressure will kill you. The concentrated acid rain will kill you. There's no food or water. The day/night lengths are unbearable - and that, combined with the cloud cover, makes solar power useless... ...and you're worried about a few immensely active volcanoes?

MYTH: Bitcoin is anonymous.

It certainly isn't - it's fairly easy to watch the IP addresses in the block chain - and you can (by design) follow the long chain of transactions leading to any particular money transfer.

Anyone with enough computer resources and the right software can determine who is paying who what.

We're pretty much a "cashless society" now - I haven't had actual cash in my wallet for more than two years. This is all very convenient - and drives online sales and so forth. But the GIGANTIC problem is that we're now (though higher prices) paying those credit card companies at least a few percent of everything we earn.

For doing what? Moving some numbers around inside a computer. That's an egregious amount of the economy - for doing something that's ridiculously easy.

So it makes sense to have the issuer of "money" (the treasury) handle the shuffling of numbers as a non-profit...and have people only use credit cards when they ACTUALLY need credit.

So it makes sense to have the government (or the treasury) set up a system of digital currency that's not providing "credit" but is cheap (or perhaps even free) for use when you're only shuffling money around.

This would also eliminate the business of cryptocurrency mining - money could be created in just the same was that coins and banknotes are...without all of the egregious amounts of power consumption, etc.

Done with care and with serious attention to security - this could be a very good thing.

Rich people are protected. The middle class and the poor deal with anarchy. The murder rate is currently way up in Democrat-controlled cities that have attacked the police. For the most part, it's not wealthy white liberals paying the price for their ideas.

So if you have your own solar panels - and you are "grid-tied" as most people are... Then your excess generating capacity is fed to the utility company to pay down your bills, So now you're a renewable energy provider...do you become liable to under this law?

And in other news: multiplying by ten is preferred over tenth-roots.

Do you believe that the favorable wind generating conditions for Scotland exist world wide? That's plainly not the case. Your 'point', such as it is, seems to rely on that sentiment.

You seem angry. That might cloud your responses, which aren't technical in the slightest. You can read the books, I'll continue to produce and distribute electricity for my day job.

If you're going to refer to a problem that's 10 years in the past, you really ought to be specific. Else it's reasonable to assume you're referring to the problem 10-ish weeks in the past.

The power lines were never the problem in Texas; unwinterized power plants were.
California is it's own kind of dumb with several layers of problems; suffice it to say the state government is an incompetent regulator, or to be kinder, has other priorities than reliable electrical supply.