From the summary:

IOW, they're sticking with their marketing pitch.

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

But by the time you get that, she'll be over 50, and not at all as appealing.

What you don't understand is the Python is often used as a method of invoking libraries that are written in more efficient languages. And for the layer that it handles it doesn't introduce unacceptable inefficiencies. E.g., you wouldn't want to do ray tracing in Python, but it's fine for calling a library that does that.

I'm quite sure quantum computers are valid. Whether they're useful is another question. I'll agree that it's not clear that general purpose quantum computers will ever be useful. (I won't agree that it's clear they never will be useful.)

OTOH, specialized quantum computers are already useful. DWave sells one design.

The Trash 80s? Had a Commodore PET 3032. A whole 1 megahertz. On the other hand, the IEEE 488 meant that I could send a command to one disk drive to transfer to a second disk drive, whilst printing, with the computer then totally free to actually do other stuff. SCSI it wasn't, but for the time, it was an ingenious solution to a lot of problems.

There really are good use cases for fission reactors. Solar can't handle everything, even combined with wind and the grid. (But close.)

E,g,, I think that the case for fission reactors on the moon is sound, though any particular implementation may be quite questionable.

Sheer luxury, lad! Sheer luxury!

We had to make our own bits and push them uphill! Both ways! In the snow!

Pah, youngsters.

However, some of you might be old enough to remember the April 1st when the front page turned pink and a link to Cute Overload caused absolute chaos. Did CmdrTaco ever get a pony, btw?

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.

True, misinformation coming from "trusted" sources is much more damaging than some idiot with a blog posting nonsense, simply by the fact that it's framed as something trusted by so many others.

False dichotomy. Nobody here is talking about an idiot with a blog posting nonsense.

False information coming from sources that "look" trustable but are actually not are very damaging - on purpose, as that is literally the intent.

Incomplete/biased information from trustable sources that are not deliberately attempting to mislead (as in sources that adhere to the ethics of not presenting information that is factually false, even if the picture is not "complete" as you suggest) is a slight wrong, and has existed since the dawn of the printed word - it's editorial in nature - but its effects on creating social problems pales in comparison to weaponized disinformation campaigns.

Hand-wringing about the later as if it's some kind of new thing, or something most people don't know about strikes me as super naive. The insidiousness of the former is simply that people don't appreciate the scale to which it's happening.

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.
 

No, but treating two wrongs as the same degree of wrongness is pretty dumb.