To somebody born in 2000, that probably is "similarly aged".

It's generally pretty good, especially if you want Zigbee devices from a company you've heard of. I've had a couple things not work quite right, but their newer products have been getting better.

I still don't think the incompetence is quite advanced enough to be indistinguishable from malice. Saying the photo's text is probably in a foreign language isn't wildly unreasonable if you haven't bothered to examine it, and up until a year or two ago it was more likely to be true than that the photo editing software did a bunch of garbage without the user telling it to.

They might have tried to get the facts - a supervisor in charge of the matter asks the PR person, "Did you make these alterations to this photo?" and the PR person honestly answers no. You can fairly criticize their incompetence, but there might not have been any malice.

They aren't editing an evidence photo, they're editing a copy of an evidence photo. The edited version would never be entered as evidence, only the original would be.

If the summary is correct (which isn't a guarantee, I know), they didn't straight up lie; nobody intentionally made the modifications, it was the photo editing software that tried to be helpful. You can certainly criticize them for not noticing the changes, but my guess is that whoever originally said they didn't modify the photo just asked other people and didn't personally check for themselves.

Most "don't feed the animals" rules are because people tend to feed animals "unnatural" foods like processed grains and meats, which aren't safe for the animals to eat.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a cat?

The expression is "script kiddie". It has nothing to do with kittens.

Slashdot has always been a news aggregator with a comments section. There has never been a significant amount of original content.

Exactly what "more private information" are they demanding? You already have to upload photos of yourself.

The contract probably has a term in it, maybe 10 or 20 years, but it's possible that the contract is for as long as the plant is operating.

I wouldn't call the summary "grossly" wrong or misleading, it's just a common (though highly annoying) error in one place. The first sentence of the summary says "200 megawatts of... energy", where the first sentence in the quotation correctly says "200 megawatts of power".

If it's safety critical, the engineers should be following the documented requirements, not following what was talked about in the cafeteria. I don't necessarily disagree that meeting in a conference room is better than meeting on Teams, but if it isn't documented, it effectively was never said. Otherwise, what do you do if one of the engineers was on vacation that week?

Not sure if intentional...

I think that's the point of the article, though (not that I read it, of course). A lot of people are assuming that it should now be cheap and easy to land ships on the moon, but there are reasons that we spent that much money to do it the first time, and those reasons are still true.