Six?

I can see benefits to all form factors, and letting users choose, but that means I also think they should be able to choose which UI they want to use. I can see the argument for locking the phone into a phone UI, at least while making calls, but otherwise I find the whole idea gross.

Maybe she's not completely out to lunch. Maybe she's exposed to a culture where every whim is catered for by an app and unconsciously feels pressure to create something unique and is finding it a challenge.

OR maybe she thinks there are people who don't know what their children like.

If we build it, then it will frictionlessly tell us what to build.

Apple was right that suckers would pay for a laptop and then pay again for a tablet with the same kernel but a different UI.

I find it's usually when I'm standing over the computer, like using it in passing. It's handy when cooking. Otherwise it's not very useful as you say. Though sometimes I would rather just touch the screen than use the trackpad, which I'm not used to. My work laptop has touch and I use it now and then.

We could put a mylar mirror at L1. They did it to increase insolation of Mars in KSR's trilogy, but you could use the same idea to reduce it. It's theoretically possible to do it with modern tech, though we certainly won't as it would require cooperation

I've transported a lot of that type of stuff in a minivan, using a tarp to keep it clean. Also you can put the Xmas tree on the roof rack. Those micro bed pickups can do basically one potentially relevant thing that a van can't, which is carry a fridge upright. Usually though you can get free delivery for something that expensive. I guess if you buy a lot of used refrigerators they might be handy?

It's where almost everything on Amazon comes from. (Albeit often in quantity from their other site Alibaba.)

My first boss in tech used a Kinesis keyboard. He blamed his severe carpal on emacs.

Thank god for that. It was hard enough to learn 9 (now 8) planets at school. Can you imagine having to learn all the names if the hydrostatic equilibrium definition held?

Since when does science work by a standard of "what is easy for children to memorize lists of"? Do we say "There are 8 rivers in the world, and all others are dwarf rivers, which really aren't rivers" to make it easier on kids? Do we say "There are 8 bones in the human body, and all others are dwarf bones, which don't really count as bones"?

That's not how science works. Science is focused on practical distinctions about how things developed and their physical properties relative to each other. Hydrostatic equilibrium is a very practical definition. The process of undergoing relaxation induces metamorphism and releases heat, altering bodies. You go to non-equilibrium bodies if you want to study the primordial makeup of our solar system. You go to equilibrium bodies if you want to study tectonics, volcanism, non-primordial chemistry, and search for past or present life. The boundary could not be more meaningful. Yes, there is a bit of fuzz between equilibrium and non-equilibrium, but the same applies to pretty much all scientific fields.

"They also have to certify these app stores, they aren't just going to let anyone set one up and start distributing malware or pirate streaming apps."

Yeah, you have to put those apps on their app store so they can benefit.

I joke slightly, though they have distributed malware before.

Conspiracies are the norm and not the exception. The wealthy meet in private clubs and offices and discuss how we will live our lives for their benefit. Are you new?

True. Many are much bigger assholes.

Supporters of the IAU definition (which I should add was a deeply biased sample, in that it looked like they were headed toward no definition or a hydrostatic equilibrium definition, so most supporters of that left, but the people trying to switch it to an orbit-clearing definition stayed) will argue that it's cleared if the remaining objects are trivial transients or in orbital resonance. But that's not what the IAU definition says. Also they'll point to the Stern-Levison parameter, but (A) that was based on the ability to scatter today's distribution of asteroids, not the primordial distribution, which included outright planetissimals**; and (B) Mars didn't even clear it's own orbit, Jupiter did. Also, in the paper that introduced the Stern-Levison parameter, they argued for a better definition where you combine adjectives and nouns (each with specific implications about the body) as needed to describe its size, composition, etc.

But the OP's point stands, in that it's stupid to say that something is a "dwarf planet", yet not a planet. It's like saying dwarf stars aren't stars or dwarf galaxies aren't galaxies or whatnot. An adjective-noun is almost always a noun, that's how language works. In the cases where an adjective-noun isn't a noun - say, "shooting star" or "slow worm" or whatnot - we treat these as scientifically erroneous colloquialisms, and formalize corrected scientific terminology. We don't do literally the opposite and have science codify misleading language.