Because the government serves the people.

I used it (Gnu Emacs) 30+ years ago when the alternative was vi and there weren't really IDEs to speak of. But these days 95% of the stuff I edit is in an IDE or graphical text editor. If I need to edit something quickly I'll just use nano or vi because they're easier to get in and out of.

Even back when I did use emacs, I preferred microemacs because it had most of the normal commands but loaded faster. Emacs was s..l...o..w. It was also infamously bad for accepting patches, practically moribund in fact. Forks like xemacs demonstrated it was capable of being a lot more, e.g. offering proper GUI support when running in X11, but emacs never bothered with that. Even when I open emacs today it feels arcane, like it just gave up. It does have some GUI support but it's a joke. Frankly it's no wonder most users gave up on it too.

Globalstar is so different.
L-band uplink and S-band downlink.

Doesn't seem a good fit for Amazon Leo (nee Kuiper).
I'd like to learn more.

I had the same experience with a coworker at AOL in the 1990s.
He blamed his left pinky arthritis on Emacs' requirement of using the CTRL key for practically everything.

It's too bad recent userland vulnerabilities made us remove Emacs from everywhere.
Our detection tools rate it as a 9/10 vulnerability.

Userland only. Yes, no privilege escalation. 9/10 vulnerability.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

It’s called AliExpress.

Thank god for that. It was hard enough to learn 9 (now 8) planets at school. Can you imagine having to learn all the names if the hydrostatic equilibrium definition held?

Since when does science work by a standard of "what is easy for children to memorize lists of"? Do we say "There are 8 rivers in the world, and all others are dwarf rivers, which really aren't rivers" to make it easier on kids? Do we say "There are 8 bones in the human body, and all others are dwarf bones, which don't really count as bones"?

That's not how science works. Science is focused on practical distinctions about how things developed and their physical properties relative to each other. Hydrostatic equilibrium is a very practical definition. The process of undergoing relaxation induces metamorphism and releases heat, altering bodies. You go to non-equilibrium bodies if you want to study the primordial makeup of our solar system. You go to equilibrium bodies if you want to study tectonics, volcanism, non-primordial chemistry, and search for past or present life. The boundary could not be more meaningful. Yes, there is a bit of fuzz between equilibrium and non-equilibrium, but the same applies to pretty much all scientific fields.

the germs to punish humanity for allowing transgender Muslims to practice Sharia law while eating your pets! Repent, heathens, or you'll end up with a brainworm like RFK's and low testosterone!

for the New Horizons probe to explore, like they did with the "snowman asteroid"*, but the area of space it can reach is rather limited, as it can change its path by only about a degree with the fuel it has left.

It's still amazing something going that fast can change its path by a whole degree. Due to luck, it didn't have to use much of its onboard fuel to get to its last 2 big targets. I hope it gets a chance to use it on something important.

* Found the by the Hubble scope, actually. They keep changing the rock's name, so I just call it by its nickname.

...one way

There are other options besides QWERTY and DVORK.

"Plutocrat 'A' grew too big for their britches, so lets give some of the business to Plutocrat 'B'."

What could possibly go wrong?

Constant antibiotics because factory farms are nightmare places for animals to survive in.

Supporters of the IAU definition (which I should add was a deeply biased sample, in that it looked like they were headed toward no definition or a hydrostatic equilibrium definition, so most supporters of that left, but the people trying to switch it to an orbit-clearing definition stayed) will argue that it's cleared if the remaining objects are trivial transients or in orbital resonance. But that's not what the IAU definition says. Also they'll point to the Stern-Levison parameter, but (A) that was based on the ability to scatter today's distribution of asteroids, not the primordial distribution, which included outright planetissimals**; and (B) Mars didn't even clear it's own orbit, Jupiter did. Also, in the paper that introduced the Stern-Levison parameter, they argued for a better definition where you combine adjectives and nouns (each with specific implications about the body) as needed to describe its size, composition, etc.

But the OP's point stands, in that it's stupid to say that something is a "dwarf planet", yet not a planet. It's like saying dwarf stars aren't stars or dwarf galaxies aren't galaxies or whatnot. An adjective-noun is almost always a noun, that's how language works. In the cases where an adjective-noun isn't a noun - say, "shooting star" or "slow worm" or whatnot - we treat these as scientifically erroneous colloquialisms, and formalize corrected scientific terminology. We don't do literally the opposite and have science codify misleading language.

Speak for yourself, Pluto is fascinating. Tectonically active. Cryovolcanism so abundant it appears to have formed large mountains by the merger of individual domes. A gigantic scar exposing its mantle, which over time roils in massive convection cells, pockmarked in sublimation pits. Mountains drifting like icebergs and accumulating on the shore. Penetentes (sublimation ice spikes), the size of large hills. A multilayer blue atmosphere, in which organic chemistry occurs, depositing not just organic matter onto its own surface, but that of its moon as well. Active glaciation. A probable subsurface ocean, in contact with rock. Conditions suggesting it was habitable when it formed.

IMHO, it's way more interesting than a number of recognized planets.

(Also, I'm confused by your response. This isn't about the moon, and the moon has no atmosphere for flying)