My only concern with that line of thinking is that it isn't just evolution -- the same group that denies evolution denies anything that implies the earth is more than 10 thousand years old. So you end up writing off not just the foundation of modern biology, but geology, astronomy (stars can't be more than 10,000 light years from us if we can see them!), even history (we have archaeology from societies that existed before the world did). At what point do you stop catering to this and just teach as though we're living in the real world?

Have you ever reached down into a top-loading washing machine? You open the lid and the spinning gradually slows down. You bend down to reach into the washer to the bottom of the bucket (which is where all of the clothes are) to move them around to stop the vibration. Try doing that WITHOUT your face being close to the lid. Granted, you could wait until the spinning completely stopped, but it seems reasonable to assume the lid won't fly off at you while you do that.

That can't be true. If they found data that led them to a conspirator, they would want to arrest that person. They would need to have evidence to present in that person's trial that they participated in this terrorist event. I can't imagine that their plan is that if the defendant's attorney asks them how they got this data, they'll just say "some un-named third party pulled this data out of their own hardware and assured us their hardware had copied it from this mobile phone." I'm calling bullshit on that one.

I will grant you that you can build a better team by choosing who you let go and who you keep. But if you let the "bottom" 15% go (using whatever subjective method you use to find them), the "top" 15% are going to see the warning signs and start heading for the exit anyway.

I won't go directly to corporations that cooperated with the Nazis for examples of corporations perfectly willing to execute innocent people (pre-reconstruction) for profit, but let's just say there isn't any reason to think the good old days were any better than today. Corporations used to have more rope and could take longer to turn a profit from investments, but profits were always the goal.

Think of Germany's situation after WWII. They had a bunch of war criminals and could prosecute and punish them. Those were the people running camps, the soldiers guarding camps, anyone who explicitly knew what was happening and helped it happen.
But every single person in the country knew the Nazis had been rounding up jews and killing anyone who helped hide them. Many had to realize that millions of jews had disappeared and there weren't anywhere near enough soldiers left in country to guard and take care of them. Many knew that some jews were being used as slave labor. So basically, an unknown but large percentage of the country didn't outright commit war crimes but did collaborate with the Nazis to some degree.

You can't prosecute 25% of your country. So they just said "We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen. it's illegal to deny it happened. But we aren't going to let it happen again either -- it's illegal to try and spread racial hate through speech." It was a compromise to prevent having to throw 20% of the country in jail. It's not crazy, it's just very foreign to American concepts.

You are implying that higher bandwidth means more supply of the product. Supply and Demand only applies if they're restricting how many customers they're willing/able to sell to based on the bandwidth. If they are only selling to the first 10 people on the plane because they only have 3 mbs bandwidth, and with 70 they'll be able to sell to 240 people, then you'd be right. But actually, they're willing to sell to anyone who wants access no matter what bandwidth they have. Supply and Demand doesn't apply here.

I think you mean it's not an objective process.

It's pretty common in smaller flights (think turbo prop planes) that are only partially sold to have to shift passengers around for weight balance. It's not so much the total weight, but the location of weight in the cabin can definitely affect flight characteristics of the plane.

I'm saying we've been trying to make this problem worse for literally thousands of years. Our current crops are much more resistant to pests than their natural ancestors. We will continue to try to make them even more resistant by multiple methods. Now that we have a pretty respectable understanding of genetics, we even better at doing it by cross-breeding individuals to get traits than we were for the last 10 thousand years. Actually splicing genes together manually is just another step more efficient. The goals haven't changed.

Crops already are invasive species. The majority of them were originally native to the Middle East and we have modified them through manual selection to grow in other regions just as successfully. We count on them to outcompete native plants (if corn (which was actually from Central America I believe) can't outproduce native prairie grasses in Iowa and Nebraska then we won't have any corn).
The point at which it could become a bad thing has already past.

I expected this to be about software containers.

Seriously though, try mentioning anything in every third conversation for a week (Did I mention my sunburn? I got a sunburn on Sunday. I went kayaking and got a sunburn. My sunburn was really bad. My sunburn is slightly better today. I thought by sunburn was better but it still hurts. My sunburn started peeling today). People will react pretty much the same way they would if you mentioned therapy in every third conversation for a week.

There is a decent chance the cost of the land is included, since he's providing it to this project as well. If you're putting together a press release proclaiming your good work (and I don't mean that as a criticism -- he definitely deserves the right to take credit for his work) you might as well make the numbers as complete as you can.

So the question can be used to weed out pedants. I guess it is useful after all.