Actually, no.
Heat pumps move and concentrate heat energy and don't "create" heat. Counterintuitively they can have an efficiency of WAY more than 100% for heating. So it is often, especially in not incredibly cold climates, overal more efficient to burn fossil fuels in a power station, transfer the energy to the house and use a heat pump there.
You get the added benefit that you can switch out the fossil energy source for whatever you want, once you hace more renewables.

Their head is ugly because it is featherless - but that actually seems to serve an ingenious purpose!
They stick their head into those juicy carcasses a lot. By having naked heads, way less goo and bacteria stick to it, and it is easier to clean.

I remember when the 1.6B $ that Google paid for YouTube was considered complete lunacy.
And nowadays, double digit billion dollar acquisicions of relatively obcure tech companies barely make the news.
How can any of these number make any sense?

It's going to be interesting once AI generated images that were shared online start creeping into the image data sets that are being used to train the AIs. The different AIs will then, in effect, train each other and themselves.

All the money in the world woudn't explain the popularity.
TikTok is, in a horrendous way, simply a very good product, because it is extremely addictive to it's target group.
I did some 'opposition research' and installed the app, and forcedmyself to doomscroll for an hour or so, after seeng a friend's kid doing it for hours on a vacation.
The constant, no-lag, no-buffering mini endorphine kicks it gives the user the "just ooooonneeee more" addiction. It's really nasty.
They also bombard you with click-baity notifications. Even though I didnt like or follow anyone, they seem to know that I am a middle-aged man, and I got notifcations of pretty girls doing borderline sensual things with clickbaity titles all the time.
I imagine they have the targetting down to a 'T' once they know more about you.
Facebook seems to be following suit - I researched some pregnancy stuff a couple of weeks ago, and for a while, my "Facebook Reels" (which I don't use. It's like Facebooks TikTok clone) was full of twenty-ish years old pregnant girls in crop-tops in a ton of make-up dancing and moving suggestively. I really really didn't like that, and thankfully the algorithm seems to have given up on showing me that right now.
But I recommend that everyone do the experiment of purposefully using TikTok/Reels/Youtube shorts for an hour or so. It really does things to your brain.
I personally think that these things are neurologically damaging, especially for kids. It's on a whole other level of endorphine mini machine gun that causes brain-dead addiction than the previous techs.
It's addictive in a similar way that wave surfing is. It's not that every wave you see is a great. It's the constant sine wave of expectation and dissapointments, with some cool gems in between that really screw with the brain. This is also why casinos are so dangerous to many people. And companies have diales in how to exploit that better than before.

I would love to know how they got this to work.
SpaceX/TMobile explained that they are using what is essentially a low-priority simulated cell tower beaming from the StarLink satellites using TMobile's frequencies.
That last part is the important part: TMobile already owns this frequencies in the USA, so they can kind of use it for that.
But Apple doen't own frequency bands, so they must have partnered with Spot or someone else. But that would imply that they have to have an additional radio and antenna in their device, which seems wasteful, compared to the SpaceX/TMbile solution.

I know, I know. "640k should be enough!" and all that.
But when will we really not need more speed? This is getting a bit ridicolous.
I would very much prefer longer cable lengths and better performance over bad wires than even more speed.

Important detail:
The rather popular extension "Nerflix Party", which allows people to remotely watch stuff at the same time, has been renamed to "Tele Party". So it seems the bad guys simply took over the abandoned name.

Netflix Party mmnbenehknklpbendgmgngeaignppnbe 800,000
Netflix Party 2 flijfnhifgdcbhglkneplegafminjnhn 300,000
FlipShope – Price Tracker Extension adikhbfjdbjkhelbdnffogkobkekkkej 80,000
Full Page Screenshot Capture – Screenshotting pojgkmkfincpdkdgjepkmdekcahmckjp 200,000
AutoBuy Flash Sales gbnahglfafmhaehbdmjedfhdmimjcbed 20,000

All IoT devices should, by law o regulation or something, support a open-standard and configurable fall-back. It would only take a few kilobyte to add basic MQTT support to anything fathomable. Just let the user add a MQTT server address, username and password, and everything would be fine.

I think I heard that some hardware encoders (like the ones included in GPUs and CPUs) are quite limited compared to their software counterparts.
Do these ASICs do the whole encoding in hardware, or do they just accelerate the grunt work?
WOuldn't re-programmable FPGAs allow way more updatetability and flexibility?

While I agree that a blockchain can sometimes be a cool thing to have, it is essentially a linked list where the links ar signed, and not much more.
The supposedly revolutionary thing about them is that they can be implemented in a distributed almost zero-trust way. But most blockchain hyped proposed implementations don't really require the distribution part? E.g. Walmart was all about using blockchain for their logistics and provenance stufff. But I bet they would just run it on their own servers, and then that's just a centralized inmutable database, which is really not something to write home about.
Similiar to smart contract blockchains - they should IMHO be run on the government's servers, and be easily mirrored for backup and accountability. But running them in one place makes it all so much easier.
So what are the great distruptive distributed-blockchain applications, apart from cruptcoins? I don't get it.

Here's the "Two Minute Papers" desciption of this awesome technique:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That's not how (modern) science works. We know that we can nevr prove anything to absolute certainty. I.e. even though things always fal downwards on earth, it might still be possible, with whatever small probability, that something falls upwards once every gazillion years. It's impossible to know with 100% certainty.
Hence, the best science can ever come up with is called a "theory". And a theory stands as long as it has not been DISproven by refuting evidence. Or maybe until it has been replaced by a more elegant and more powerful theory.
This is also why scientific claims/theories have to be, at least in principle, be able to be disproven. I.e. "my theory states that things fall downwards on earth. To prove my theory wrong, please show evidence of something falling upwards, and I will retract my theory.".
This basic tenant of the cientific method is incredibly important to deeply understand. And sadly, as the anti-science movement continuously shows, we have a lot of eductation left to do.
For the nitpickers: the gravity example is a simplification. Of course something could fall upwards if there's some other force pulling it upward.
For the super nitpickers: yes, it seems gravity is not a 'force', per se. Go away.