But... But... But... Twenty years ago, Microsoft was almost broken up over building a browser into the OS! A clearly evil practice no one would do today.

So what's the news? Google pushes you to download Chrome every time you visit their site.

Exactly! At least with Google I know that they're not tracking anything I do through my web browser. Oh, wait...

I know there's a lot of Firefox-hate at the moment (with some good reason), but I use Firefox as my web-browser of choice on Android. Why? Adblock. No other mobile browser has add-ons like Firefox. And the ability to block ads really speeds up the browser compared to Chrome in any real-world situation.

I've had this issue with Irish email addresses. Several of our customers are in Ireland and have an email like seano'connor@foo.com, which is a valid address, but a library I was using rejected it.

When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, he posted bail and went on news programs. These days, you get thrown into solitary confinement for years before the government decides maybe it'll give you a secret military trial.

"Textualist" is how Scalia portrayed himself, but if you look at Shelby County vs Holder, where the Supreme Court struck down most of the Voting Rights Act, Scalia's arguments basically came down to the idea that he was a mind-reader about what Congress really wanted to do, but was not politically able to do, never mind the text. Other times, he disregarded the clear intent of the lawmakers in favor of the strict textual reading. But he was hardly consistent. He was a textualist when the text favored him, he ignored it when it didn't. And maybe that's not unique to him - I'm not saying he was unique in that respect, but let's not pretend he was intellectually consistent.

In the end, he was a Republican justice. Nothing more, nothing less.

I didn't say from modern apes. But our ancestors were definitely apes. I'd actually say we still are.

We evolved from apes. The science is settled. The Earth goes around the Sun. The science is settled. Anthropogenic Warming is happening. The science is settled.

The scientific method means any theory can be overturned in principle. But in practice we know some won't be. Anyone telling you the science isn't settled on Evolution because nothing is ever settled in science is being just as disingenuous as you are.

Not that the Russian government isn't incredibly corrupt and wasteful, but this is actually probably what you'd want to do. If your economy is tanking, you'd want to continue to put *some* money into aerospace for as long as you could to retain talent and prevent you from having to rebuild it from the ground up later. Maybe not enough to do big ambitious projects, but you'd want aerospace on "idle" for when (hopefully) the economy improves.

I mean, NASA stopped building big rockets that went to the moon and "just" went into low earth orbit for a few decades, and they're *still* basically back at square one when it comes to building Saturn V-sized engines. Imagine if aerospace had been completely shut down.

. NET is released under the MIT license. Plus, they have a "covenant not to sue" over reimplimenting the API, promising they won't pull a Java. It's more free-as-in-freedom than most open source languages.

It's not really a mystery. Phones used to have external antennas, and now they're not only internal but the phones themselves have mostly metal cases (because it feels so much more "premium") with a tiny plastic window for the antenna because that metal blocks the radio waves. This is textbook "form over function" design.

Why can I never figure out where a link is going? Read back over that. There are two hyperlinks in the summary. One is "an article by two early Apple designers" the other is "lost its marbles when it comes to user interface design."

So which one of those goes to the article that the summary is about? It's the second! That's so counter-intuitive! Seriously! Why do I have to click through your links to figure out what you're linking to?

* Constant, not confident.

The paper you cite raises the idea that while West Antarctica is losing ice fast, East Antarctica is gaining mass. However, a couple caveats.

1. That result hasn't been reproduced, and there is some healthy skepticism that they're measuring right since they used satellites to estimate snowfall and then estimate how much of that turned to ice (a surprisingly complicated process). Plus, it used old data (8 years old, and we know that ice loss has increased dramatically since then). So, the short version is, the paper you linked may end up being right, but the consensus view among scientists is still that Antarctica is losing ice.

2. Even if it turns out to be true, the authors of the very paper you cite say that Antarctic ice loss is accelerating as the snowfall remains pretty confident, and their opinion is that within a few years, ice will loss will outpace gain.