There are so many unknowns in "dark matter" that they can't really claim it doesn't interact with itself. Some of the theories have it not interacting with itself, but that's not a good argument. There are too many possibilities. ...From here on I'm just spinning ideas...
FWIW, I came up with a theory that there are nine basic flavors of dark matter, each about 1/10th the mass of the universe, and the various flavors don't interact with each other, but they do interact with themselves, and are as varied within themselves as ordinary matter is. So you'd have nine types of dark galaxies.

This is a really BAD theory, but it's fun. The problem is that dark matter tends to be associated with galaxies, and local dark suns should be quite noticeable in that circumstance. We don't see that kind of result, so there aren't any local dark suns. I'm not sure we could detect them in another galaxy, but they should affect stellar motions within our own in a noticeable way. Unless you want to special case our own galaxy, dark matter needs to be rather diffuse for some reason...nothing much larger than a G class sun, possibly a M class. The reason you can get away with something that large is that lack of friction with ordinary matter means that you wouldn't get anything captured into a binary orbit with a normal star.

I don't think it's been ignored, but it might have been siloed. I was aware of it, and I'm not even close to an expert in that field. (OTOH, that bit about Teflon was surprising. I'd have expected Teflon to be totally inert.)

That's probably a underestimate. But, yes.
The real problem, though, is that many of them intensely support him. I think many of his supporters tend to be more firmly committed than were Nixon's.

Calling him a loser is incorrect. That he has occasionally lost is correct, but find someone who hasn't. Sometimes it seems he's playing a different game than the one we expect him to play.

But I rather agree with the rest of your characterization. And think it leaves out quite a few correct pejoratives.

I think the problem is that there's a conflict between good security and ease of remote use. They've been pushing ease of remote use with "adequate" security. Now that security is no longer adequate, but they don't want all the customers to be angry with them.

Sorry, but who, officially, has the right to name the lake? I'm pretty sure it isn't the president.

My preference is Eustatia.
I think I first proposed this around 1990, perhaps a little bit later.

To me it appears you've go an extreme definition of "meaningful". It you want to claim the effect will be small, I'll go along with you. If you want to claim it won't be present...why do you believe that? It appears to me to be an unreasonable claim.

Well, actually Denver usually DOES have higher cancer rates. Attribution, however, is difficult. (It's probably not just altitude.)

What do you mean? Denver has frequently been compared with some sea level city, and found to suffer more radiation damage. (The exact radiation damage found depends on the study.) Of course, it's hard to control for the amount of granite, etc. nearby, so they aren't strictly reliable studies, but they *have* been made.

Sorry, that's a bad argument. It may well be true, but any absorbed radiation will raise the temperature, and any raise in the temperature makes unusual chemical reactions more probable. So you need to argue that the factor is too trivial to be significant. This is probably true, but has never been demonstrated, and probably cannot be demonstrated. (I've seen claims that they're demonstrated the harmlessness, but the claims were always logically invalid.)

Considerably. Also wider spread.

Well, IIUC the actual models generally say more "nuclear autumn". It's still enough to cause massive famines and various other really undesirable effects. (I didn't say side-effects, because they are really components of 'nuclear autumn.)

OTOH, that was the prediction decades ago for a nuclear war between India and ... Pakistan or Afghanistan (I don't remember which).

I doubt those methods give the estimates for 10m below the surface of the ocean. It *is* a short record, but it's what we've got. Also, I don't see any reason to doubt it, except that I'd rather the answer were different.

Still, don't put high certainty in this particular measure. The problem is that it agrees (in general) with lots of other measures that have a much longer span. There are arguments against pretty much every one of them, but they aren't convincing and even so you have to have dozens of special cases happening at once.

Whether it's profit or not depends on whether people buy anyway. I've decided "no upgrade this year".