The ones that the writers of the piece liked.

There's a continuing narrative that we hate journalists because of "malign influence" or some bullshit. That people are rubes, easily manipulated, and if political leaders would just take charge and prevent the "wrong" media, people would love journalists, politicians, etc. But people came by their distrust honestly. For much of my adult life, journalists have talked down to their audience (when it was a mass audience, anyway, before it fractured into pieces). I still remember Peter Jennings, in 1994, sourly lecturing viewers on how they voted the wrong way. The tone was very much Just what do you people think you're doing, anyway?.

Trust in these institutions is gone, and probably will never return in my lifetime. And it's entirely the fault of the people in those institutions. No one else.

Arrogance gave you Brexit. Your side wouldn't listen to voters, and you and the entire political class that you align yourself with called them oafs, and fools, and generally discounted their concerns and told them to know their place. THAT got you Brexit. And that fact that you still haven't learned this... that you still can't admit defeat, that you still look down on "them" as dirty, unwashed masses that should conform to their betters' wishes, that you continue to blame your loss on sinister outside forces instead of your own shortcomings... means that you'll almost certainly make the same mistakes again.

And what happens when the enemy kills your satellites?

Now, I completely agree that stealth is overemphasized, but stealth is just part of a larger problem. The US military, particularly the Air Force, has a seriously bad tendency to rely on "magic bullet" solutions... a hyper-expensive technology that they think will win wars in a single blow.... instead of taking a layered approach that mixes new solutions with old. Which is important, because, war after war, we have to relearn the painful lesson that magic bullets tend to fail.

The F-4 Phantom not only met expectations, but far exceeded them, to the point that the USAF adopted it (even though it hurt their pride being a Navy program). McDonnell started the design in 1955, the prototype rolled out in 1958, and it entered USN and USMC service in 1960. After it was bloody obvious that the F-4 was far better than anything the USAF had in it's so-called Century Series of fighters, USAF adopted it in 1962 and their initial version... the F-4C... entered frontline service in 1963. It would dominate USAF's tactical fighter wings, with F-4's making up 16 of their 24 wings at one time. All on time, and on budget, with multiple versions being developed along the way (notably the RF-4 photo reconnaissance aircraft, and USAF's ant-surface to air missile "Wild Weasel" F-4G versions).

Take away the satellites, and you effectively take away the drones. Don't kid yourself. The destruction of comms satellites will cripple nations, as we've largely gotten rid of backup terrestrial navigation aids like LORAN in the West, while both Russian and China kept legacy nav and com systems as backups, and are even expanding them. The first day of the war, satellites will be the very first thing to go, because you go after your enemies communications first.

Which is unreliable in many situations. I worked on several projects that had issues involving intermittent data loss on a DB9 port, and every time the culprit turned out to be a USB/DB9 adapter. When we'd install dedicated RS232 cards, the problem went away.

For laptops, the answer to this kind of thing should be a standard space where a customer can specify what ports he wants... you get X number of standard ports, and then you can choose what goes into one or two available spaces. But you're just not going to see that happen with manufacturers, even if the customer is willing to pay a greater cost.

Except that I spent some years growing up in dense, street-centric areas, and kids simply played in the streets. Every day. Our substitute for baseball (so as not to damage cars or windows) was "whiffle ball", with hollow plastic balls and bats. In the summers especially, we spent literally all day outside. In the streets. For kids who did this too much, the criticism was literally that "you let your kids run the streets".

Being car-centric has nothing to do with kids activity. The spread of video games and Internet connected culture had everything to do with the modern dearth of outdoor activity by kids. All of my youngest's friends are online in distant places. There are other kids in the neighborhood, but very few of them play outside that I can see. Online is where all the action is. Maybe the answer is for parents to literally kick kids out of the house, they way they used to do ("out, and I don't want to see you back inside until lunch" was a common summer refrain from parents). Maybe if all the kids are turned out, they'll start doing the natural thing, and make their own fun, which is all "outside" is.

Tipping is great in good service jobs. You tend to make good money in mid-to-nicer restaurants as a waiter or waitress. Where tipping sucks is when you work in cheap joints with cheap customers. Or delivering pizza, like you did in college, where your customers tend to be either poor or cheapskates. Poor people can't afford to tip, and cheapskates simply won't. And then there are the groups that simply refuse to tip because they don't see labor or service as a value at all. "If I can't hold it in my hand, I ain't payin' for it".

Calling your superiors in the workplace a vulgar name is a fire-able offense pretty much any place else. It's not just the word, but also the fact that using it is a type of insubordination. If your boss is a jerk, then you need to find work elsewhere. But every workplace has discipline and conduct standards. You simply can't let subordinates openly insult their chain of command or you won't have much command.

You've just charged a comedian with a criminal offense because his Tweet might hurt feelings. Any freedom of expression Brits had is meaningless empty symbolism at this point.

Seriously. This is the South. Put a bounty on these things, with no bag limit, and local hunters will pursue them to extinction. Get the major cowboy boot companies to chip in with all skins going to them for their "Florida Man" production line. Compensation can be a little cash and free boots for yourself and the wife. And all that snake meat will surely be good for something. In 5 seasons, they'll declare a snake genocide.

Because that's now how property works.

AI-enhanced robotics will replace humans on a number of manual labor positions, but adoption will be a matter of scale. Because mobile robotics will always be expensive, they'll only be adopted where each can do the job of 10+ humans on a near 24 hour basis. Farming is a good example of where mobile robots will eventually be widely adapted. They'll pretty much pay for themselves on very large farms. But your plumbing contractor will never reasonably be able to afford them considering how much work each employee gets. You can only work on one toilet at a time, one house at a time. The scaling simply isn't there for small businesses with skilled workers. Same thing for small to medium scale construction contractors. You might see robots supplementing men on big city skyscraper projects, but not doing home renovations or pouring a new driveway at someone's house.

Everyone needs a degree now because we watered down high school and made it worthless, then we banned companies from using IQ tests to select workers, and so the college degree became a stand in for "He's probably smart enough to do this". But now we're watering down the Bachelor's Degree, too, because it's unfair if everyone doesn't have a college degree or some nonsense.

That is flat out wrong. The goal was specifically to replace human beings in a wide swath of positions.

What makes AI unique is that, unlike say, the spreadsheet, it wasn't created to make workers more productive with some skill training. It was created to completely replace a major chunk of knowledge workers, maybe most of them. And it will. AI is a jobs extinction level event. Manual work will be unaffected... AI can't fix your toilet or lay mortar in a construction site, but it's going to be the asteroid that kills off most coding jobs, financial analyst jobs, and a huge chunk of administrative jobs. The software dev positions that remain will mostly be for maintaining AI. All that "learn to code" advice from just a few years ago? Unless you're going into a hyper-specialized software field, requiring years of education and training, you're pretty much going to be obsolete, soon. And I mean soon as in "this decade", not some ambiguous date down the road. So not only will fields like software completely change, but the education ecosystem that served them is going to undergo a serious culling as well. No more coding camps, boys.