"It could be that some plants have evolved a strategy" Plants do not evolve. Animals do not evolve. A company can evolve. Plants and animals are subject to evolution. If scientists use improper terminology, they degrade the general understanding of science and, just possibly, even cause other scientists not in the field to misunderstand. I do understand that this is a conflict between the basic nature of the English language and the way Darwin originally expressed the concept. I understand that English always wins in the long run. Still, there are a lot of people out there who do not understand evolution and some, maybe much, of the misunderstanding comes from the above terminology.

"Unfortunately, the lock down is necessary because the dummies outnumber the smart." Is that truly the way you feel about humanity? Do you realize what evil that permits? Who do you want to be in charge?

The Post Office could create an email system. Lots of people, me included, would pay good money to use such a system since it would be covered by the Office's authority and the privacy and tampering laws. There would be some differences between it and normal email, but secure email would be worth it. There should also be a way to pull normal post office operations away from companies such as FedEx and Amazon. Both do their best to keep the Post Office from competing fairly with them.

If it applied just to Google, why would it be patently unfair? "Fair" implies a commonality between the members of the set. You could use the same argument for why the anti-trust laws should never have been legislated. Google, Facebook, and Amazon are the monsters du jour.

The argument at the time against the Bill of Rights was that the Constitution restricted the government, not the people. They predicted that once you start listing the rights of the people, then what does not appear on the list does not exist. Even with the Bill of Rights things got along in a lurching fashion until the Supreme Court gutted the Commerce Clause. Their action concentrated almost all power in Washington D.C. Very bad things have followed. So, what is a "right" as understood today? Only something that would horrify the original signers of the Constitution. Funny, the Federalists were the ones against the Bill of Rights and attacking federalism is quite popular in the press and various groups these days. People want the government to do things and the only form of government they understand is a monolithic power in Washington. They are getting what they ask for in the short run, and not getting what they want in the long run.

Back around 2001 Intel sold a chip that was later found to have a small mathematical flaw, not one the normal user would see. If you could give a reason why the flaw would affect you, they sent out a replacement kit. You pulled out the old chip, inserted the new, and sent the old back to them. I had a good reason. That may not be possible in this case, and the number of machines with the chip out there is vastly greater, but back in the good old days they managed to accomplish it.

The proven solution is to require the company's water intake to be downstream from their discharge.

"Since it wasn't a genuine situation but the evacuation and enhanced response still took place, doesn't seem unreasonable that he faces some sort of misdemeanor charges for wasting everyone's time." Is this not an abusive or corrupt use of a legal system? This guy caused a problem, find something and charge him with it. Granted the federal and local governments, even a substantial part of the population, seem to like this approach. It still reduces respect for the law and the compact between people and government.

The concentration of power in Washington snowballed after the Supreme Court made its ludicrous decision, Wickard v. Filburn, finishing the complete gutting of the Commerce Clause. Once all the power went to Washington D.C., those with monetary power headed there and tried to grab everything they could, succeeding at way too much.

"It may be, for example, that female patients are less good at volunteering the important information . ." Possibly men and women just communicate differently. Women, in general, might have developed better communication skill and normally carry the 'nuance' load in conversations. If that were the case, then matters such as heart attacks might distract them enough to drop the load for the moment. Most of the male doctors, having never learned the skill, fall down when they need to pick it up.

This was being done in the '70s. The term was 'automated inventory control'. General Automation did the project, I worked for them at the time. John

Not complaining for no reason. Wikipedia really does bother me. An article written in Britannica is normally written by a single person and the article has a 'voice'. The articles in Wikipedia all come across as an attempt to present information. But human beings want their information presented in context, the human context. It is great to read an article written by an enthusiastic person. That enthusiasm, that the writer really considers the material great stuff, makes it more of 'great stuff' to me, the reader. The Wikipedia articles do not come across this way. They present the information. Period. It is not that hard to find information on a subject. Sometimes you have to include "-amazon" and a few others in the search field. There are also whole categories, such as medicine, that people can find the best information elsewhere. I guess I came across as ranting and apologize for that. John

In many ways Wikipedia is a depressing creation. The Internet is a sea of information. The search engines are quite good. If you search on a word or an event, you get good information. In areas, particularly commercial, you have to wade through crazed advertising. In areas political you have to wade through swamps filled with monsters. So what? Wikipedia doesn't do any better in these areas. Instead Wikipedia presents dumbed down versions of things and because it is a little easier than using a search engine, people use it. How is it different from people using Amazon though it destroys their local jobs? Or using Uber no matter how it behaves? People will flock to things perceived as easier or cheaper. People will continue to use Wikipedia. Saying that its loss would lessen the value of the Internet shows a lack of understanding about the Internet, yet does show an understanding about people. John

Yes, and I will enjoy robot cars. Yet when I drive I am aware that it is only my competence that prevents me from dying or killing someone else. And, yes, every driver with enough miles under his belt has had occasional blind luck that saved him from doing either one of those. What bothers me is the general loss of physical competence in the population. People just don't know at a gut level how the physical world works. Drivers get some training in it and robot cars will take that away. Most people could not bring down a tree safely. Most people don't even know how protect themselves when they fall. I said I like the idea of robot cars, but the only way people learn about physical reality is through risk, injury, and possible death. An argument can always be made that an activity that encompasses these three things should be modified or banned. Is this good? John