requires a 90-day lunar orbit reconnaissance before landing

Is that a type-o? did they mean 90 hours? I can't believe they'd send their astronauts to orbit the moon for three months?

Funny how they've got that blue barrier for them to crash into at the finish line, then they get carried away on stretchers. Should be an interesting story behind that.

Did they completely tap their battery for the final sprint and can't even stand anymore? Or were they never programmed on how to stop?

Whenever I see something like "less than 0.03 percent", I have to wonder if they actually meant to say "less than 3 percent".

It's a 100-fold difference, so it'd be a pretty significant mistake, the difference between "1 in 33" and "1 in 3,333"

IMO, percentages aren't appropriate to use for odds less that 1 percent anyway. Humans are aleady bad enough at understanding odds, and this just makes it worse.

https://www.cs.wisc.edu/2025/0...

And DARPA has a whole program for it:

https://www.darpa.mil/research...

Border searches are complicated because there's a good deal of conflicting, ambiguous, and overly broad laws at work there.

- US citizens cannot be denied entry BUT they can be searched, harassed, threatened, delayed, and of course arrested if they have active warrants

- they can confiscate and hold anything you have with you, and they've got a fist-full of catch-all reasons that they can abuse to allow them to apply that to anything, including the clothes on your back.

- they can make it nearly impossible to get legal property back if they set their mind to it. The bag of tactics to delay return of property is deep, and the more you refuse to comply with their "requests", the harder they can make it to get your property back. Saying "they can't keep it FOREVER" doesn't mean much in practice when they can take months or YEARS to return it, and even then only after an expensive legal fight. (and that's if they don't "lose" it in the process) They're well-known to delay or ignore court orders, and unfortunately judges seem reluctant to use the court's authority to force them to follow the court orders. Just look at the hundreds of court orders they've defied, compared to the ZERO arrests that have been made for such defiance. You and I can't get away with that, but they can, and they KNOW they can, so they're really not worried about consequences if they ignore a court order.

- when (legally) detained at the border, destruction of property is a crime. The courts are going to have to work out the specifics, but a big part of it is going to hinge around whether or not giving someone a duress password can be considered "destruction of evidence". He's not the one that typed in the password, and that is what destroyed the evidence. I personally think he should have just kept his mouth shut, and used the shortest possible duress password that's early in the "try all combinations" search list like AAAAAA or "letmein". The "destruction of evidence" law was written long before duress passwords existed, so a judge is going to have to decide whether or not the law is broad enough to cover them. I foresee them comparing a duress password to an incinerator trap placed inside a safe, that if you try to drill the safe, the incinerator turns on and turns the documents into charcoal before you can get the safe open. Usually in a case like this, the prosecution has to show some proof or at least strong likelihood that there was damning evidence in the safe. If they meet that bar, the court/jury is allowed to infer that the destroyed evidence "would have been harmful to their case". But I haven't heard any mention of any specific crimes, it looks like this was a "fishing expedition" on his phone. And courts REALLY don't like fishing expeditions. If all they can say is "we strongly suspect there was evidence that SOME law was broken on the phone", that won't meet the legal standard. It's not a legal search unless you can specify in detail WHAT you are looking for.

- the border people clearly screwed up in actually providing an obviously fictitious reason for his detention. That's definitely going t be used as part of his defense, because if the detention wasn't done legally, then the "destruction of evidence during a lawful search" is going to get dismissed. They can't legally detain you at the border for a DOMESTIC investigation, which is what they were doing, so they had to frame it as a border security detention to lock him in that room and have domestic LEA start questioning him. It shouldn't be difficult to prove this was abuse of border authority, and that'll get the "destruction of evidence" charge tossed. (it's like you can't be arrested for resisting arrest)

- this whole thing happened because they wanted to coerce him into letting them search his phone but couldn't get a judge to sign off on a warrant for that, so they got the bright idea to have customs trump up a "random search" to lock him in a room with LEA (INSTEAD of customs) to do their illegal detention/investigation. They're basically using customs to bypass the courts on getting a search/arrest warrant. I'd wager there's an excellent chance this alone will get the case dismissed. The smart move for them would have been to have carefully "coached" the customs people on what to do and let them handle it. That might fly in court, but not this. Customs wasn't performing the interview and search, LEA was, and that *should* make the whole detention unlawful, which will vacate the Destruction of Evidence charge.

So he has a variety of defenses here, and he doesn't have to pick just one. He can raise them all, and if any of them are upheld, he walks. This is why he's VERY likely to win this case. None of his defenses are air-tight, but they're all pretty good, and he can try them all. It's basic statistics - if he's got five defenses and they each have a 30% chance to fail, that still cuts him free more than 99% of the time. And I think his odds are much better than 30% on these defenses. It's going to be a hassle, could take quite a long time, and theres's going to be legal bills to pay, but I expect the charges to be dropped or he will prevail in court. (we may even see the EFF get on board)

A judge this month rejected a legal challenge by Mr. Perkins and others, who argued the recall violated Missouri's Constitution.

Some are thinking that a recall election violates their state's constitution? If that was the case, your constitution needs some working on!

FCC: "Over the last month we've received many comments requesting that we do X, but we disagree with that, so we're going to ignore all your comments and go ahead with Y anyway."

A related phenomenon is, Holocaust survivors live(d) longer. There is no good explanation and repeating the experiment is, thankfully, quite impossible...

Simply the Forbes link was enough to confirm this point

Nope. One link is not enough — from the very beginning I asked, that each citation consist of two links: one to the prediction being made, the other — to confirmation/discussion of it coming true. Another rule was, the two links must be at least 5 years apart.

The purpose is easy to understand. A person can privately record 20 predictions of, say, an average temperature somewhere changing from -10 to +9 degrees. Five years later one of them will have made a precise match, and Forbes will write about him. If you didn't know about his 19 other predictions, you'll be impressed... This is why I insist on the prediction to have been published — prominently — ahead of time.

you purposely ignore the arguments

Because I was not asking for arguments — I was asking for citations...

The case against Big Tobacco was based on the fact, that their product was actually addictive. Nicotine is not just psychologically, but chemically addictive for humans.

There is no such case against software. Against marijuana-growers — maybe, but the same actors are surprisingly quiet about that.

Facebook has been pressured earlier into spreading government propaganda and then publicly testified about this pressure. Its current troubles are much more likely to be rooted in that, than in any actual "harm to children".

reminds me of that old movie, where the government basically had a "time machine" of surveillance technology and could stalk you for hours days ago with no oversight.

You're not paying me to be your research assistant.

Voila, asking your kind of science-deniers for scientific evidence usually ends this way.

So you have not read those IPCC documents yourself — while smugly accusing me of doing "anything at all to avoid looking at" same. Take your "L" at the exit, by your left, and don't let your tail get caught in the door.

I've noticed that climate deniers are highly allergic to reading actual science

But you are not, are you? So it should be quite easy for you to provide the citations of nature and in the shape I've asked for: a prediction, and it materializing. Two separate links at least 5 years apart... With the evidence being, supposedly, so abundant, why is it so hard for you to satisfy my request?

1967, the first greenhouse effect model using detailed CO2 infrared spectra and incorporating convection and radiation

Great, what did it predict, that was not trivial and actually impactful, but precise?

here's an article from Forbes that does the same comparison

You're now offering a different link — instead of answering the follow-up question about the earlier ones — does this mean, you concede, that the links you posted earlier are not satisfying the simple rules I started with, and wish to withdraw them? I don't want to be accused of "moving the goal posts"...

P.S. Calling me "an idiot" or "denier" is not going to work :-)

And I'll even help!

Please, sift through your massive documents yourself to cite a couple of "precise, non-trivial and impactful" predictions. I assume, you've read the documents you're offering as evidence yourself, so it wouldn't be much of a burden for you. Thank you!

They not only improved the model's forecasts; they also discovered why some of the model's predictions had been off

Wow, some had been off? Ok, nice to see an acknowledgement of that.

Now, how about a successful prediction? Something reasonably precise, non-trivial and impactful, please — falsifiable, yet not falsified in due time...

If you choose to play, be sure, each citation includes two links: one to the prediction being made, and another — to it coming true within at least 20% of the predicted value (for the quantifiable ones). Crucially, the two links must be at least 5 years apart...