Why disable access to Mythos because Fable's guardrails can be bypassed?

Why would you presume this? Because they are the 'good guys'?

Unfortunately most of the world is sexist and isn't inclusive. Even in the places in 'the west' that claim they aren't sexist and are inclusive, most of the actual childrearing work is done by women.

It seems like used a lot of custom parts and offered service under warranty. The custom parts were too expensive for them to make a decent profit margin and so unreliable that their service costs rocketed.

Allegedly.

The linked article suggests that they have thought of this. The first sentence of the article reads, "giving every young person in the country €20,000 (£17,000) to be spent on study, training or setting up a business once they reach the age of 18."

I guess they left that out of the summary for clickbait.

It is a political view. I think governments should stop big business monopolizing industries and gaining excess profit at the expense of customers. The Adam Smith, classical economic free-market idea was that the market was optimal as long as it was competitive. There's a different political view that believes that government should stay out as much private activity as possible. You are welcome to hold the libertarian view. I'm not saying that this is wrong. But this isn't the approach taken by the US, US and EU governments.

To protect consumers from monopolies with higher prices and less choice. Almost every country has competition watchdogs.

Why pick which corporate behemoth to white knight? More competition is generally good for customers. The UK competition watchdog will probably roll over in the end. But this ruling seems a good one to me.

Planting trees is clearly a 'good thing'. But you then need to protect, feed and water that tree as needed. The actual goal is to increase the number of living trees, not just to plant lots of trees. This may seem obvious, but planting trees is a common example of a gamed metric.

In my part of London, the local government plants lots of trees. But the trees are maybe too cheap, or not suitable for the location or not maintained. Most die. The next year they remove the dead tree and plant a new one - which quickly dies. They are doing great on the planting trees metric. But there is no increase in actual tree cover.

Honestly, I think it is you that doesn't get crypto-currency. It is a successful get-rich quick scheme for a small number, a questionable and maybe failed, get-rich scheme for many and a multi-million dollar scam opportunity for a tiny number. The whole decentralized, autonomous, mathematical stuff is just the marketing for the investment / ponzi / scam.

That doesn't seem very hard. They didn't pour that water on the 48 states. There is more to the world than the US. The surface area of the oceans is around 50 times more than the 48 states. So maybe the oceans have globally risen by a few centimeters.

I means that the document appears to be produced by a British spy agency, specifically GCHQ, but this cannot be verified with certainly.

Everyone needs to make their own assessment of the accuracy of news outlets. I see no reason to doubt the BBC on this claim i.e. that GCHQ didn't explicitly deny the document.

I'm not really sure what point you are making. Why would the BBC lie about this technical and, to my mind, plausible report?

So you don't agree with the conclusions or methodology of a study the results of which don't fit your political agenda.

The threat that the article explains is that cheaper, better batteries makes going off-grid easier. Of course, electricity utilities aren't going to release a press release stating that they 'are afraid of this new technology and will try to kill it'! You may have doubts about how much of a threat batteries are to electricity companies and how that potential loss compares with the gain from electric cars, but the article is clear on the risks, in my opinion.

Let's take Slashdot as an example. I am posting using my account, but there is no automatic way for this account to be linked to me the legal entity. In respect to this proposed law would this count as an anonymous post? If this is a back door to forcing people to link all their online activities to their real life identity, that would be a major problem.