My vintage MacBook Pro is now running Linux, so the illuminated apple logo seems to be some kind of false advertising. After all these years it's still my sexiest box. Too bad I don't buy computers for sex? (I would have been willing to go for a dual boot, but Apple made that too difficult, so...)

Funny part is that I regard it as my most secure box and I only use it about once a month for a bit of Internet banking. Rather too bad my banks don't seem to understand much about computer security. Lots of top news stories about online breaches of major companies, including FinTech operations. Am I delusional or naive to hope my physical SIM is still protecting me?

Will I ever buy another Apple? Feels unlikely, but I confess that I am still hoping for Microsoft to go away, so maybe I'll have to?

I hadn't heard the YOB had offered to rename the moon, but one third is only by volume. For mass it's about one sixth and diameter would be around two thirds... (At least that's what the genAI told me, and I can't imagine why it would hallucinate again.)

But I think the seventh dwarf joke was funnier, even though I can't remember the song he must be referencing. I'm guessing it's a Disney thing?

Me? I suppose I prefer my politicians feckless and "mostly harmless" rather than dictatorial profiteering wolves in sheeps' (shills'?) clothing.

Okay joke, but these days we have to take any CDC news with a huge grain of salt. Or dose of penicillin?

Is this coming from an actual scientist or a political appointee who has been parachuted into the CDC?

The actual problem is quite complicated. We want a certain amount of exposure to pathogens to "exercise" our immune systems, but not so much exposure as to start breaking things permanently. It's a different flavor of the youth thing. Young people who recover may even wind up better than ever, mature people may recover fully, while old people are more likely to recover only partway, and quite slowly even for that.

Part of my general age definition joke of the week:

1. Young: Balance of change works out positive.
2. Mature: Changes come out around zero overall.
3. Old age: None of the above, sorry.
4. When the changes stop you're dead, so have a nice day changing.

The other reply had the XKCD about gravity wells, but it's one of ones that's really hard to look at because of size issues...

Well, when you put it that way, it does sound better than the local source, but mostly thanks for the XKCD link. Always appreciated and usually funny, too.

Thank god for that. It was hard enough to learn 9 (now 8) planets at school. Can you imagine having to learn all the names if the hydrostatic equilibrium definition held?

Since when does science work by a standard of "what is easy for children to memorize lists of"? Do we say "There are 8 rivers in the world, and all others are dwarf rivers, which really aren't rivers" to make it easier on kids? Do we say "There are 8 bones in the human body, and all others are dwarf bones, which don't really count as bones"?

That's not how science works. Science is focused on practical distinctions about how things developed and their physical properties relative to each other. Hydrostatic equilibrium is a very practical definition. The process of undergoing relaxation induces metamorphism and releases heat, altering bodies. You go to non-equilibrium bodies if you want to study the primordial makeup of our solar system. You go to equilibrium bodies if you want to study tectonics, volcanism, non-primordial chemistry, and search for past or present life. The boundary could not be more meaningful. Yes, there is a bit of fuzz between equilibrium and non-equilibrium, but the same applies to pretty much all scientific fields.

Supporters of the IAU definition (which I should add was a deeply biased sample, in that it looked like they were headed toward no definition or a hydrostatic equilibrium definition, so most supporters of that left, but the people trying to switch it to an orbit-clearing definition stayed) will argue that it's cleared if the remaining objects are trivial transients or in orbital resonance. But that's not what the IAU definition says. Also they'll point to the Stern-Levison parameter, but (A) that was based on the ability to scatter today's distribution of asteroids, not the primordial distribution, which included outright planetissimals**; and (B) Mars didn't even clear it's own orbit, Jupiter did. Also, in the paper that introduced the Stern-Levison parameter, they argued for a better definition where you combine adjectives and nouns (each with specific implications about the body) as needed to describe its size, composition, etc.

But the OP's point stands, in that it's stupid to say that something is a "dwarf planet", yet not a planet. It's like saying dwarf stars aren't stars or dwarf galaxies aren't galaxies or whatnot. An adjective-noun is almost always a noun, that's how language works. In the cases where an adjective-noun isn't a noun - say, "shooting star" or "slow worm" or whatnot - we treat these as scientifically erroneous colloquialisms, and formalize corrected scientific terminology. We don't do literally the opposite and have science codify misleading language.

Speak for yourself, Pluto is fascinating. Tectonically active. Cryovolcanism so abundant it appears to have formed large mountains by the merger of individual domes. A gigantic scar exposing its mantle, which over time roils in massive convection cells, pockmarked in sublimation pits. Mountains drifting like icebergs and accumulating on the shore. Penetentes (sublimation ice spikes), the size of large hills. A multilayer blue atmosphere, in which organic chemistry occurs, depositing not just organic matter onto its own surface, but that of its moon as well. Active glaciation. A probable subsurface ocean, in contact with rock. Conditions suggesting it was habitable when it formed.

IMHO, it's way more interesting than a number of recognized planets.

(Also, I'm confused by your response. This isn't about the moon, and the moon has no atmosphere for flying)

Yep. Back in the early days of Slashdot, when helium usage would come up, I'd grumble about how wasteful the medical industry was with helium.

It still uses a lot, but it's nowhere near as wasteful as it was before.

Yes, like the Nile Delta, water flowed in from wet regions further away to the desert and near-desert lowlands, and humans began using it for agriculture. Around the Tulare Basin, there's dozens of inches per year in the mountains due to orographic uplift, but only half a dozen in the lowlands. The problem is that farmers first consumed the water from the mountain-fed local rivers and are now consuming water shipped in from as far away as the Oregon border and drawing down groundwater much faster than it's being replenished. At the same time, the mountain rivers are becoming less reliable as climate change leads to snowpack melting earlier. As it stands today, it is not sustainable. More water is being used than is long-term available.

Indeed, I have no clue what you think you were trying to prove with this link:

The conversion of this water system to a lake-and-slough wetland to agriculture began in the mid-1800s when European settlers began to build canals and diversion structures to irrigate their crops. This early irrigation infrastructure upstream from Tulare Lake slowly cut off the lake from its source waters, shrinking the lake's footprint. By 1899 - less than 50 years after irrigation was initiated - Tulare Lake went dry for the first time in history.

They were overdrawing the rivers *even before the 20th century*.

Only comment along the lines of my earlier comment, but I forgot to mention that the Chinese government is also too good at keeping secrets. Seems quite possible to me that the Chinese AI we should be worrying about is not public. Especially not in the stock market sense.

Fusion? Where?

Whoops, I meant great-grandparent, but when this gets posted it will be great-great-grandparent. I mean the joke by Junta. That's where I'm suggesting the Funny should go.