No, you don't. What a weird post.

Or even more likely, this bullshit is made up entirely.

You can't, right? There's no primary sources in the slashdot post. There's no primary sources in the article. This is made up bullshit.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Oh my god. You say these things like you actually BELIEVE them. That's... astounding. "Conservatives recognize their take is biased."

1. We're talking about American politics. There are no conservatives in american politics.
2. I'll assume you're talking about right-wingers.
3. Please provide any support - any, at all - for the proposition that "The American Right, writ large, recognizes their take is biased."

Let's forget the BEVY of inaccuracies in the rest of what you wrote. Provide some support for the basic proposition you start your screed with.

The EAS has been under review for years. The replacement project was kicking into high gear under Biden, then Carr fired the woman in charge. Now they're claiming this is some new program?

You're right - it doesn't make you a Nazi. But, if a bunch of Nazis support you, it's incumbent on any decent human being to ask "why are the Nazis supporting me." If Nazis are supporting you, it probably means that you're doing something wrong.

Also, and this isn't really the point, but did you really just compare drug dealers to Nazis? Rethink your life, man.

How about this one: "Gas chromatagraphy better than the human nose at determining differences between two specific chemical compounds." I would be willing to bet a HUMAN given the output of the gas chromatagraph would be at 100% accuracy too.

"predict the top five odor keywords based on the chemical contents of a whisky."?!? What the holy hell is this nonsense? "Computers better than humans at moving a cursor precisely 100 pixels, robot dominance soon to follow."

I'll bite - how would that dramatically reduce costs? Doctors' salaries account for about 6% of America's 4.5 trillion/year healthcare spend.

What bugged me at first about this write-up was the use of "pro bono." These lawyers aren't working pro bono, IE free. They're working on contingency. Not in any way the same thing.

Second, there is zero proof of what this guy is saying. And given the fact that he's suing the city council for *SIX HUNDRED MILLION,* no reason to believe it.

This might be the actual dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's not what a use case is.

This is somehow being framed as a "solar glut" instead of "California is over-subsidizing fossil fuels, and is stuck giving away clean power so that fossil fuel plants can keep their profit margins up."

They're an Irish company. Just look at their corporate paperwork.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

Nothing to say to that but [Citation needed].

Yes, Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. And you've clearly got it. Here are some quick quotes from the article:

"the Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament."

"used the Eric Trump Foundation to funnel $100,000 in donations into revenue for the Trump Organization. And while donors to the Eric Trump Foundation were told their money was going to help sick kids, more than $500,000 was re-donated to other charities, many of which were connected to Trump family members or interests, including at least four groups that subsequently paid to hold golf tournaments at Trump courses."

"In 2012, the Eric Trump Foundation wrote a check for $25,000 to the George Rodrigue Foundation of the Arts. That same year, George Rodrigue, who had said that his famous "blue dog" paintings sometimes sold for about $25,000, created a portrait of Donald Trump for the auction at Eric's event. "

But you're right, the *opinion* section of the Forbes article says "it's done a lot of good." THAT part wasn't sourced, and there's no basis for it. But that's what you grabbed on to.

What a coocoo for cocoa puffs way to write that. The question isn't "is it hurting the environment. Of course it is. The question is how much and are the trade-offs worth it. (The answer is "no, they're not" but at least if you ask the sane question it's a discussion that can be had.)