It's a bad idea because it hinders trade. However, if only one side is profiting from the trade, the other side doesn't have much reason to support the deal.

This is probably fallout from Trump's "pleasant comments" about our allies.

I think you've never tried to understand the code of a large project written by a different group of people.

I believe there was a period right after the civil war that was as bad.

Even that depends on how long you expect it to be before you need the funds. As the "cashing in" time gets closer, you need to reduce the high-risk part.

The problem is that this allows the trustees to bet someone else's money on wildly speculative things. Proving that they acted irresponsibly will be on the person who lost all their means of hiring a lawyer.

IIUC there are two different kinds of things that are called "gravity waves" in quantum physics by those who aren't experts in the field. One of those is undetectable, and the other is what we've been detecting. (I'm no expert, so I can't clarify that.) There's also something called "gravity waves" in fluid dynamics, and that's definitely detectable.

It depends on your time horizon. The predictions aren't *currently* testable. Testing them depends on building new tools.

I sort of don't like it, because I don't really accept continuity, but I've no evidence that my feeling is correct. (I expect things to break down before one gets to 10^-33 cm. But that's because of something Wheeler speculated about in the 1980's.)

That is, indeed, one of the problems, but it's not the one the article is discussing.

Compare this to what you would have said last year.

Somehow "cheap weapons able to target civilians, but not those well protected" doesn't make me feel happier. And such weapon are clearly only useful for attack, not defense.

Well, arguing from the derivation of the word is just silly, but:
https://founders.archives.gov/...
clearly shows that some of them agreed with that point of view. Hamilton, however, was only one side. Others interpreted it differently.

Actually, all that literally means is that you can carry them. It doesn't say anything about ownership or control.

Calling that a deterrent is whitewashing it. A hypersonic missile is an attack weapon unless it is specifically an anti-missile missile. It's most highly useful in first strike situations.

Actually, it's one thing to announce, it's another to manufacture at scale. If this is real, it will be a severe threat in 5 years, perhaps a bit less.

What's the range? I really doubt that this is the new MAD, but it does add a new and exciting amount of uncertainty, and increase the advantage of attack over defense.