This has nothing to do with discrimination. Peter Thiel is a major supporter of Trump and Obama administration is now punishing him. This is no different than Obama's IRS going after Tea-party organizations before the last elections.

I find it most annoying with Google last several years that they mangle the URL they send me to so I can't easily change it to the parent or higher level URL.

You had an interesting essay "My Hobby: Hunting for Our Universe" on your blog in 2007 about modeling fundamental Planck scale physics via random networks (this was also mentioned in your NKS books). I didn't see anything written or spoken on that topic later. Did that project ever yield any recognizable physics or was it abandoned?

Of course my code, like any other, has bugs. For example, most of the time if I add several pages of new code, it won't even compile, let alone run correctly right away. I just never have buffer overflows. It's somehow ingrained to check for boundaries (either on the run, or when efficiency matters by algorithmic certainty) as the algorithm advances through the data. Among my bugs, mostly it is a wrong variable being used, or used before it was initialized as expected or after it has 'expired', or variable/function which evolved since the initial code was written and now it works differently, breaking some other code that relied on it, ... sometimes there are even algorithmic errors.

But overflowing buffers is a kind of elemental mistake one doesn't do beyond first few weeks of learning to program. There are just too many of these in the presumably professional grade code (IE has had one uncovered almost monthly since 1995 it seems), and as luck would have that kind of bug is the most suitable for injecting external code into the program. It's too much of a coincidence for my credulity.

I don't think so. There are just too many of these buffer overflow security holes in commercial and open source software to be a chance. In over two decades of programming in every language and platform that came along, from Z8, x86 assembly, then FORTRAN, C, Pascal,... Java, Javascript, Python, awk, objective C, ... from embedded coding on routers, switches and misc. controllers, to numerous versions of MS DOS, Windows, Linux and iPhones, I have yet to have one such buffer overflow bug in my code. It's the most basic rule to check for buffer boundaries that even beginner programmer learns it quickly.

There must be agencies seeding these projects, commercial and open source, with toxic contributors injected there to deliberately contaminate the code with such bugs. The further fact that one never sees responsible persons identified, removed and blacklisted suggests that contamination is top down.

You didn't get beyond abstract apparently -- it boosts both growth factors, FGF-1 by 50%, FGF-2 by 100% (see Fig2, p.6 or here Fig2.jpg).

As always when a new miracle medicine is hailed in the media, I check the effects of the ancient medicinal plant, tobacco on the same biochemical mechanisms, and it didn't disappoint this time either -- as shown in this paper (pdf), it boosts the same Fibroblast Growth Factor-1 by 50% (nicotine will do as well in this case).

This is probably Microsoft leak, trying to cripple into unusable state the remaining XPs they didn't get to previously.

They work on the same principle, well known as hormesis. Yet, vaccines are not only praised as one of the greatest achievements of public health, but are routinely forced upon those who would rather not be medicated against their will by the "health" bureaucracies.

Attacks on homeopathy via regulatory agencies are simply an abuse of government power by the Sickness Industry cronies seeking to squash the competition.

This "study" is meta-junk-science about other meta and non-meta junk science (epidemiology) contracted by the telecom industry & regulators (i.e. the future & former industry consultants). As they acknowledge in the report, experiments are left for the future research.

I would like to see animal experiments replicating typical exposures of someone keeping the phone in their pocket or on their head all day. Or teens talking on the phone for hours day after day. Also model of pregnant woman having the phone inches away from the fetus throughout pregnancy. The animal studies should also follow test and control groups for the whole lifespans of animals (e.g. lab mice and rats live only 2-3 years so it shouldn't be a big problem).

Another aspect, also left for future research, are the effects of mobile & Wi-Fi exposures on large organic molecules in the cells. This is very relevant since such molecules have photon frequencies (or energies) of various quantum transitions (e.g. those involved in protein folding or enzyme actions) in the GHz frequency ranges. Resonances with such molecular processes could have more subtle and narrow effects (e.g. on some cognitive and immune functions) for which epidemiology and even animal experiments are much too blunt to detect.

This is a common sleight of hand in the pharma (or general 'sickness industry') sponsored mercenary pseudo-science, when they want to "prove" that inexpensive, non-patentable substance X which is actually good for you, "causes" cancer -- they give X to mice bred specifically to develop cancers they wish to blame on X. After the coarse grained form of the "discovery" story is retold in mass media (or on Slashdot), it becomes "X causes cancer."

To see exactly how this sleight of hand works, consider substance X that improves circulation and promotes growth and vitality of blood vessels (e.g. gingko biloba, arganine, etc), which are all the effects normally good for you. But if you get a cancer, then cancer will use the improved blood supplies and stronger angiogenesis to feed itself, hence it will grow faster than if you had poor circulation and suppressed angiogenesis. That is then twisted to declare "X causes cancer." In fact the cancer was caused by the genes that were deliberately bred into this type mice.

More generally, onset of cancer turns values upside down -- what was good for you when you were healthy, becomes bad for you when you get cancer, since cancer will co-opt it for its own growth. What was bad for you (poor circulation, cellular toxins and pro-oxidants, heavy metals, chemo, etc) becomes good for you, since it may affect cancerous cells more than the non-cancerous cells.

A useful analogy illustrating the nature of this reversal of values in cancer, is to consider human society as a (super-)organism, which it is in many ways. In a peacetime, roads and other transport systems are good for the social organism. But in the case of war, the good transport systems often becomes a major downside since the enemy can use those roads to advance its troops and boost supply lines. In contrast, poor transportation in peacetime is bad for the social organism (backward nations). But it is also bad for the potential enemy during war. This can be easily observed on historical examples, such as WWII, where German blitzkrieg conquered the more developed nations, such as France, Netherlands, Poland very quickly, while it got bogged down in the backwards Balkans, with lots of mountains and few roads, and never really had control of those territories (except for the major cities, which were few in numbers). Similarly, in more recent wars, the backwards, mountainous undeveloped Afghanistan (or jungles of Vietnam) is practically impossible to conquer, while the more developed Iraq was overrun in weeks.

Hence, the above style of mercenary "science" using cancer mice to "prove" alleged carcinogenicity of wholesome Vitamin C or E is analogous to mislabeling transport systems and other infrastructure as a national weakness, and advocating going back to stone age, by demonstrating how much quicker the nation can be conquered if their infrastructure is good.

It is also similar to policies which mislabel personal liberty and privacy as harmful and deadly, by showing how terrorists (or drug dealers, crazies, etc) can take advantage of those liberties and privacy to cause harm. These are all the same kind of scams as the above "study" scaring people away from the vitamins C and E. All of such scare campaigns are often promoted by the very same people from the same crony front groups/NGOs, as result of natural synergies of interests -- a need to condition and herd the sheep with common scare tactics.

I actually find these kinds of "studies" quite useful, since they help me identify what is good for me -- it is always the stuff that the sickness industry is trying to scare me away from (e.g. fat, meat, eggs, bacon, cholesterol, tobacco and other ancient medicinal/entheogenic plants, etc). Further, as a rule the greater the efforts and lengths they go to with their scare mongering about X, the better X must be for me (i.e. worst for their profits). The most useful one for my health was when it dawned on me to invert "make sure have the regular medical checkups" into "stay away from doctors or hospitals" as much as possible. Last time I saw doctors was when I traveled to the 'old country' in 1991 to visit my parents, both medical doctors. In the meantime, I was mostly doing exactly the opposite from the advice of sickness industry.

Whatever the deal he may be offered, he better stay where he is (Russia and China, at least, would love to have him be accessible, as long as he wishes to stay there). Once he is in custody here in USA, anything can happen e.g. he could be found hanging in his cell and declared a victim of suicide. Who is going to investigate?

You may have not read the full text pdf, since I was quoting from a peer reviewed paper which had 40 citations backing up all figures and facts stated in the paper.

Maybe you need to take a class on how to use Google. I found the real journal in about 10 seconds (instead of your suspicious, bare IP, possibly set to collect visitors' IPs). The paper I cited is in this issue (pdf from the journal site, not paywalled).

You should take it up with the referees for the peer reviewed journal if you believe your objections have merit. Maybe they will retract it if you send them your opinion backed by the above list.