I even wonder why they haven't done it much sooner.

We didn't have good ion thrusters back in the 50s, 60s and 70s and after that launching nuclear reactors into space was considered a bad idea, not without reason. A nuke plus ion engines isn't a slam dunk either, ion engines produce very little thrust and reactors are heavy even if you don't have to bother shielding them much, so there's an efficiency threshold you need to hit before it's worthwhile.

NASA has realized that beating, or at least competing with, the Chinese to a moon base is probably going to require a reactor, so why not demonstrate it as part of a drive too?

A tool. A very useful tool, if you know what to use it for and how to use it.

the original formulation of relativity and physics in general did not distinguish between rest mass creating gravitation and light speed particles generating gravitation

Maybe you have access to some early draft notes of Einstein's, but in his actual papers on relativity mass does not "create gravitation." Energy, momentum and some off-diagonal terms like stress and pressure gravitate. There is no mass term in the stress-energy tensor, nor anywhere else in the Einstein Field Equation. Mass is not fundamental in relativity, it's a property of a system. That property is the product of energy and momentum (and the other stuff) in particular configurations within the system so in many situations it can be used as a surrogate for the underlying energy, momentum and other stuff.

Physics prior to relativity did indeed say a lot of different, confusing things about mass, gravitation and light speed particles.

"Creating fusion" isn't hard. Kids do it for science fair projects. Here's a guy on Youtube making a fusion reactor.

Making a fusion reactor that produces more electricity than it uses is hard. That's what you're thinking of. Rocket engines famously do not usually produce electricity, and if they do they do it extremely inefficiently, so it's a completely different problem.

we don’t have massless drives

Reactionless drives. A massless drive would be an engine that didn't have any mass, I guess. We have lots of drives that don't involve throwing mass out the back, including solar sails, magnetotorquers, electrodynamic tethers, flashlights, etc. Hard drives have a few. Your car has at least one big one and a bunch of others besides, as does your body. None of them are reactionless though.

Reactionless drives are called that because they violate Newton's third law, which is really a statement about the conservation of momentum.

Individual photons don't have mass, abstract or ortherwise, they have energy and momentum. Individual fundamental particles of any kind don't really have mass because mass is a property of a system.

A system of multiple photons can have regular old non-abstract mass if they're configured properly.

Part of it is probably how inconsistent and confusing Windows group policy is designed and phrased. There are so many policies where the setting is not enable or disable with one of those as default. Rather the options are "do not allow" or "not (do not allow)" with the default unclear as to what it does. I swear sometimes the option has to be read as a triple negative.

This data is coming from workplace computers. Users get whatever the company buys and do not always get many choices. Generally business machines are a little better than consumer versions.

... in my $20/mo account.

(Well, except very occasionally for their own services.)

Weird, an LLM has never deleted all my emails ... oh wait, that's because I never gave an LLM the power to delete all my emails.

Do I have to burn their physical snapshots and portrait photos too?

I'm not sure this has been really thought through ...

Came to see folks rooting for the brutal theocracy of Iran. Was not disappointed, lol

Also the major flaw in this plan is whether the assembly is in the US or overseas does not stop backdoors from being loaded.

It sounds like the person behind this does not understand how manufacturing works. If backdoors are being implanted into these routers, it is not some rogue foreign agent assembling the router. The backdoors are most likely designed in the firmware. Somewhere in the assembly process, a worker or machine will load the firmware. The assembly workers whether they are in the US or overseas do not know what is in the firmware. Their job is to load it. Another workers job may be to test the router by hooking it up to a testing machine.

I think the word that has some wiggle room is "consumer". Business grade routers are exempt however I did not read that business grade meant enterprise. There are business grade routers meant for small and medium sized businesses. They cost a little more than consumer grade ones, have better warranties, and most of the time use better parts. I can see a loophole being exploited by the router manufacturers is to launch a new line of business budget models that are basically the same models as consumer ones with slight changes. "It is in a different housing and the we updated [meaningless metric] to double."