Ate a lot of paint chips as a child, eh?

Both parties are electing extremists. This is because our voting system is broken.

Some sort of ranked choice or approval, and STV for electing more than one representative per election, would work. Unfortunately the party in charge (of either side) does not want that because it means their extremists will lose. So this likely will never be fixed.

Tesla is already in trouble due to profound incompetence.

Good observations, though I am Gen X so after a childhood of editing config.sys to get retail games to run on the PC I have an incredibly high tolerance for putting up with that nonsense.

The advantage of small reactors is that (in theory) you could build a plant with 20 or so of them. This would make them less expensive because they would all share the support infrastructure. The reason this would be less expensive than a single big reactor is that they can be individually shut down for maintenance, so a SMR that only works 50% of the time is useful, while a big reactor has to work 99.9% of the time. Obviously as you stated they also have to make SMRs work at all and at a price that is less than 1/20 of a big reactor, which has not been proven yet.

The fantasy that towns would put a single SMR in their town square or a data center will put it in their basement are just that, fantasies. But clusters could be a deal changer for nuclear.

From the summary:

IOW, they're sticking with their marketing pitch.

That's no longer the American Way (if it ever was).

Wind is part of the cause, but the GS itself is an ocean current.

The reported drop ins SpaceX is understandable given the recent IPO.

As for most of the others, is a 2% drop significant?

In a free country, "too big to fail" is to big to be allowed.

It's transaction fees that are the problem with credit cards.

"Now that same mob has blocked me for trying to bring an intellectually diverse group of thinkers and editors to the site," Translation: "That mob blocked my mob!!!!". Sorry he lost me there, I was sympathetic earlier, but he blew it with that.

I'm not from the future. It's just that time is cyclical.

There are various hypotheses to explain it, such that the universe is cyclical or that we're stuck in a time loop. But the most broadly accepted hypothesis is that a prior civilization collapsed at the end of year 32,767, and it has taken us almost 35,000 years to get back to where we are now.

Of course, our calendar doesn't allow for a year 0, so we may have an off-by-one error. But then again people celebrated the millennium at the end of 1999, so maybe there's a tacit assumption that there was in fact a year 0.
 

Actually, I like watching the stunt men and special effects.

Nah, they're just jealous that other people's fuckups have been dominating the news, and they want some of that old-fashioned media love too.