I wouldn't say Python killed Perl - never mind "rightfully". Perl committed seppuku when they announced Perl 6, had a committee design a whole different language, and work on it for years, so people thought if they learned Perl 5, it would not translate into Perl 6, waited for Perl 6 for a bit but that was not happening, so the language sort of appeared in limbo/dead. It was many years later when Perl 6 was renamed to Raku to make it clear is a whole different language than Perl 5 (which continues to be updated with new yearly releases).
About the "rightfully", for beginners Python seems simpler, but that's just an illusion. Most programmers who have used both extensively will tell you Perl is more expressive. And they would take curly brackets over indentation anytime. Most importantly, you can't compare Python now to Perl, you have to remember that back then when Perl lost its popularity and Python rose, Python was painfully slow. Yes, it was significantly slower than (the slow) Perl in many things if you are old enough to remember. But, at the same time as Perl's self-inflicted wounds, Python also got some great packages in data science, which became quite important, so it got a lot of popularity from that.
I do prefer Python over Javascript, but I'd definitely have preferred for Perl to have remained the more popular of the two (and had grown like Python grew by having a larger developer community).

Oh, yeah, I never added details without references. Still most things would not stick for more than a few months. So not immediate, I only realised after I noticed something important missing from an article that I was sure I had added, and then went back and looked at my contribution history and whether my additions were still there... Most were not (along with other parts of the articles missing or rewritten), it looked like I was wasting my time so gave up.

On the one hand, I am very familiar with how much garbage AI produces, especially when you ask it to edit articles with sources etc, which would not be as bad if it was obvious garbage, but it's not so it takes quite some effort to rifle through it.
On the other hand, I absolutely despise Wikipedia editors, so I don't know if AI is much worse. I was a regular contributor until I realised most of my edits were being removed for no good reason, so contributing by the average person was pointless. And then came the notability nazis who removed tons and tons of articles or sections of articles that IMHO made Wikipedia a great source. The fringe things that are subjectively deemed not worthy by a power-tripping minority group were the most useful articles for me.

I think the problem is not so much the $70 vs $80, it's that this money is to buy a beta that might or might not be eventually fixed/polished etc.

I don't understand. Do you mean Chris Hemsworth is an "up-n-comer", or are you saying it's easy to find someone new but similar to him like Chris Hemsworths grow on trees?

Not that I care or gonna watch F4 or another superhero movie. Well, with the very rare exception now and then...

Wait, he didn't have the trademark for "pebble" but he had for "Core 2 Duo"??? Or is Intel selling off assets for a penny nowadays?

I think it's pretty clear that Israel would not go as far as blindside even the Americans and keep pushing that hard if it was not for Netanyahu knowing he is personally in deep sh** otherwise. He serves the most fanatic of his government quite well like that, so they are happy to follow, but it's mostly him driving this...

If you look at the paper, the earthquake moves in m/s, but the rapture itself moves at 3-7 km/s, that's what they call "supershear". Even in the video he shows the graph of the quake at "m/s" but then says "this is opposed to the speed the rapture propagates, at several km per second, faster than an airplane".

Most of the disadvantages I mentioned are the inherent properties of hydrogen :D

I didn't elaborate on that, but the "faster refuel time" is not that certain if you think about it. Hydrogen cars can refuel in say 5 minutes. But you also have to drive to the fuelling station. It's becoming common for EV cars to charge in 0 of *your* minutes, but plugging them in where you park (home, office, parking).
And, as I said, EV superchargers are becoming faster and faster, that Xiaomi one I mentioned is for a 500 mile range car which charges from 10% to 80% in 12 mins.

And EV vehicles emit nothing. What's your point? The emissions are just shifted to the production of batteries, generation of power and hydrogen. It all depends on the whole lifecycle, how the power is sourced etc. You can't say one is inherently better. Although I guess in theory you *could* have green hydrogen while you can't have green batteries. But that's only in theory.

FCEVs is a technology that does not have the glaring advantages that make it worth pursuing despite the huge issues it will have with things like fuel availability, in mine (and many others') opinion. The likes of Toyota and Honda invested heavily on it at a time where EVs were not evolved enough to make it obvious they would become so good so fast. Well, not obvious at least to them, it was obvious to others who invested in EVs and batteries instead. Japanese companies are also generally known to go down a path for longer than many Western companies, so we'll see how long they will pursue it for...

"The technology works" only in so far in that it can power a car. It's more expensive, less efficient and has loads of other disadvantages compared to EVs. The companies that are continuing their efforts are just trying to get something out for their investments.
Hydrogen is flammable, corrosive, hard to transport/store and producing it is not efficient and a lot of it is still produced via fossil fuels. And as the summary mentions, the have even mostly abandoned the hydrogen combustion engines - you burn hydrogen to create electricity to power an electric motor. The only real advantage touted is the faster refuel time. In the meantime, due to physics, you can't refuel hydrogen particularly fast, while at the same time EVs charge faster and faster - Xiaomi's latest charge at 500kW for example!

Wait, your amber alerts come as emergency notifications? That's absurd! The EU alert system has several levels, you can opt out of the low ones, but not the highest level. That will show up on your phone whatever your notification settings, but it is only sent if there's grave danger, like this flash flood, so you are only expected to get those very rarely, maybe years apart...

That sounds inefficient. I've got a couple of horses pulling mine!

Yup. No advancement has been made, I still run my phone on lead-acid!

FYI, I was using Geekbench as a quick comparison since you can easily find scores, but the current version (6) seems to have pretty much broken multicore.

Otherwise, a lower-power version of the Macbook Air alongside the whatever-M for a lower price is not a bad idea, M1 level performance is plenty - still better than most current low-power Intel chips. I don't understand what sub-$999 means though. Are we talking about $799, $899 or... $998?

They don't really cater for the most obvious demographic. Yeah, I would not want to carry an extra tech device, but I am already wearing glasses anyway, I'd actually love it if they could do one more useful thing apart from correcting my vision. But they have a quite limited prescription range, if you are hyperopic like me, you are most likely over their +4 limit (especially if you have any astigmatism at all). If you are strong myopic or mid-myopic with some astigmatism you are SOL as well. And it's not really a technical limitation, I pay extra for the high refraction index lenses anyway and they come out thin enough to easily fit frames that are in the Ray Ban Meta style. Not sure if it's a stereotype either, but most of my geek friends who are the most "gadget friendly" people tend to wear strong prescriptions too...