Outright hostility, you say? I can't imagine how that came about.

PowerBook Pismo: Display cable sliced by Airport antenna connector. PowerBook Wallstreet: Hard drive connector board attached by a single screw that didn't hold it in place, causing constant disconnects. The iBook G3 graphics chip disaster. So many mechanical design mistakes, so few column inches to write about them.

You mean 24x7 solar power? Now calculate how many centuries an on-earth data center could go, even with having to use batteries at night, even with replacing the backup batteries every couple of years, before the cost would equal the cost of a single launch. In other words, that's not an actual advantage, at least in practice.

Besides, you can't repair or upgrade the hardware when it is in space, which is such a colossal disadvantage that the advantages would have to be almost unimaginably great to balance that out.

It's quite possible; OTOH having drones flying over our nuclear plants isn't something we should feel blase about. Maybe a drone swarm can't do much actual damage to a nuclear plant, but the fact that people are flying drones (deliberately or accidentally) in a restricted area is bad news all by itself; it suggests either complete ignorance of the law, or bad intentions.

Why not boost the ISS instead of de-orbiting it? Is it because it's just too old to keep safe for human habitation, regardless of what orbit it's in?

Enjoy your 320x200 streams.

It might be too soon but the Exodus Technologies third-order Coulomb devices (IIRC) are built for this kind of very low impulse long duration lifiting.

Getting a rig up there to clamp on to the Hubble is probably the hard part of the project.

High-impulse propulsion is more likely to damage it than low and slow.

This was during the "NJ Drone Flap".

Trump was on TV saying he'd been briefed on them and the drones were "tracked back to their garage".

Last thing he said about it before his FAA said "they were authorized, we're not explaining, stop asking".

Matthew Livelsberger said they were of Chinese origin.

Robert Hastings wrote an entire book on unidentified craft over nuclear facilities covering four decades of documented incursions.

The FoIA request sounds like good data but nothing new.

The only theoretical advantage I can think of for a satellite would be that if someone launched one from international waters, if some random government wanted it to stop existing or stop doing something, they'd have to launch something to destroy the satellite, because from a legal perspective, it wouldn't be within their jurisdiction.

But in practice, as far as I know, nobody is launching anything into orbit from international waters, so this is entirely theoretical, at least right now.

Porn stars. At least back when I quit WP, one of the things that sent me over the top was that every minor porn star (especially female) apparently deserved their own page, while scientists didn't even if they had numerous published articles and citation and done important work - but their field was nothing famous.

In theory.

If you follow actual notability discussions, they are largely about "this isn't important".

The deletionists are one of the reasons I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. It's not like you need to fit into a 20-volume print edition, idiots. You can give every damn porn star who's been in one clip you liked their own page, why not everyone else? For all I care, every human on the planet could have their own page, and every house with a story, and every dog and cat.

Just imagine if the amount of time and energy spent on the deletion discussions alone would go into improving WP instead.

Or, you know, you could use the time to do something about the people hogging their favorite page and considering it their property and reverting everyone else's edits just because it wasn't made by them. Or one of the other dozen issues the site has. But no, whether or not Xav deserves a page, that's what needs discussion. Fuck off.

Closer to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy tradition. All they need are the words "Don't Panic" on the front cover.

If it doesn't, it has no real value.

Almost nothing on Wikipedia is true, but all of it is "verifiable" in that there's at least one published source making the claim. Even if 99.9% of all other sources say the opposite.

(The Haka is not, for example, a war chant. Which is attested to, but because it's claimed to be online, it is "verifiable".)