I notice you have dropped your other argument without acknowledging it.

And no, I do not have reading comprehension problems. "I made a mistake" puts the blame on you. "[something] made me make a mistake" puts the blame on [something].

Given that English is not your first language (my presumption being based on a reference to German news sources in 1986) I think it's fair to say that this is an understandable error. English is a fucked up amalgamation often jokingly referred to as "three other languages in a trench coat" so a simple grammatical error like this is easily explained by the language barrier. I have a bunch of German colleagues that all have some word and grammatical choices when speaking English (saying things like "unpossible" rather than "impossible," for example) that probably make perfect sense as a direct translation and I would think this falls into that category, wouldn't you say?

Are you suggesting that German news sources don't have archives? It's amazing what we can do with computers these days. But, sure, it doesn't sound fair to ask you to look for a needle in a stack of needles, so I'll let that go.

Let's.

Funny, I found the text with little difficulty, and I speak like thirty words of German. From German Wikipedia:

Additionally, with regard to your "I did not say that" you said "your steam bullshit made me type wrong." You certainly placed the blame for your error upon me.

You have the cause and effect reversed. The cooling water in the reactor became supercritical and flashed to steam, causing the explosion. The graphite burned because it was already extremely hot and the explosion allowed oxygen to get to it, completing the fire triangle. I am old enough to remember 1986, too, and I would be interested in seeing your "1986 news source" that claims the graphite exploded, as solid graphite does not do that. Perhaps you are simply misremembering?

I respect that you originally wrote "hydrogen" in your previous comment and made a typographical error. However, there is no "steam bullshit" as this is the actual cause of the explosion. Additionally, "look at what you made me do" is something people who cannot accept responsibility for their own actions say when they're trying to blame other people for their errors.

They have like $80B in cash and cash equivalents. They can stick around for decades like AOL and Yahoo.

The graphite was not the material that provided the explosive force, the steam was. That's why it's called "a steam explosion." If you blow up a rockface with TNT, it's a "TNT explosion" and not "a rock explosion." This is not a difficult concept.

Damn, you just love getting shit wrong. They were hydrogen explosions.

Are Chinese workers equivalent to wrenches in your world view?

Those are, indeed, completely different things but only one of them happened at Chernobyl. The graphite didn't explode, the explosion was caused by steam. The reactor also melted down. you can see pictures of the rather famous "elephant foot" proving such.

My personal favorite example of this is OpenAI's stated plan to have $1T per year in infrastructure spending. If you do the math, you will have to replace approximately 1/3rd of the entire productive US workforce and charge their former employers about $30k a year per displaced employee to break even. On the infrastructure. OPEX not included.

The math doesn't math.

Meh. Give me real AR glasses that let me display the stuff I want as an overlay on top of what I'm actually seeing, and I think $2k would almost certainly be worth it. I'm willing to bet the linked product isn't that, though.

The fact that the article uses lower case would tend to suggest that "moon" is correct. Title-case would capitalize the word in either case, so it isn't useful for inference.

Hmm, let's check:

Big Sur
Monterey
Ventura
Sonoma
Sequoia
Tahoe

No, no, you're totally right, this has everything to do with McDonalds as some kind of appeasement to Darth Cheeto rather than referencing some location in California. Well spotted!

Do you actually need to do it for extended periods, though? All you have to do it make it intermittently unreliable for a few minutes at a time in order to potentially make it unusable in a war zone (if your GPS guided bombs/cruise missiles have a high probability of going off target, you're not going to use them and fall back on laser guided bombs / inertially guided cruise missiles, for example).

Err... "we were only defrauding people until we could figure out how to make the snake oil actually work" is still fraud. No amount of handwaving gets you passed that.

No one is using well-known ports for anything legitimate that isn't the associated service. Anything spun up on e.g. 110 that isn't a POP server is going to inherently be questionable.

You'll want to amplify on this, because blocking a well-known port for an insecure protocol has no downsides. Nothing legitimate is going to be spun up on e.g. 110, why would you leave it open vs blocking it?