I'm retired, so I have time to download and install any patches on my Fedora box while I'm making breakfast every morning. Generally speaking, there's a new kernel available every week or two, but recently there were two in the same week. I guess that the kernel devs don't think that a monthly patch schedule is adequate to keep Linux safe.

Well, and FWIW, there has been a huge increase in the number of
"security fixes" Debian has been downloading recently. I assume the same is true of other Linux distros and probably for Apple, though I don't think those are made public. Perhaps the BSDs haven't seen a large uptick.

...nd I am equally sure that Google has been working on this for ages too just in case the need it. It's called getting ahead of the problem.

Considering that the type of censorship demanded calls for human-level intelligence, how do you expect Google or anybody else to solve that problem given the current state of the art?

[Citation needed]

Once I see it doing what I want, I'll be interested. But in order to do that, it needs to be able to understand the action of the fiction I'm asking it to read. E.g. if it's reading "Alice in Wonderland" it needs to use a proper voice for Alice talking to herself as she falls down the rabbit hole. (And for the editorial comments interspersed.)

O,. and it needs to be able to do this without an internet connection.

Yes. I remember, years ago, writing a program where I reversed the standard meanings of TRUE and FALSE, not to obfuscate the code (although it did) but so that I could write the one test central to the program in the way that looked right to me. It's a tiny change from what you'd normally use, but most people reading over the code wouldn't even notice it at first and end up completely misunderstanding how it managed to work. To me, at least, that's what the judges should be looking for, rather than odd formatting and other typographical legerdemain.

I take it, then, that you're completely indifferent to the fact that the Islamic radical's publicly stated goal is to drive all Israelis into the sea?

Years ago, I was giving a physicist (who happened to be a friend of a friend) a lift home, and the conversation drifted to the problems of reconciling those two theories. I had a sudden inspiration and suggested that the main problem might be that relativity deals with point sources of gravity but at quantum distances Heisenberg raises its ugly head and what you get is "blob sources" that relativity can't handle. My acquaintance was quite impressed that I'd come up with the idea on my own and told me that this was, in fact, a major stumbling block. I'm not sure where the idea of knowing what happens inside a black hole came from, but under the circumstances, I doubt that it's as important as you were told. Of course, I'm a layman so ICBW.

While your points are good, this looks like negligence to me. So, yeah, our "justice" system needs reform, but that facility should be made to change it's practices. (Not that I'm sure this decision will cause them to do that.)

Thank you. I was considering posting to make that point, but you beat me to it. I would like to point out, while I'm here, that the OP's argument boils down to, "We tried it about fifty years ago and it didn't work, therefor it will never work."

The problem is that TMI was NOT a really bad disaster. It was frightening, and could have been bad. Actually, though, it was quite contained. But the more reactors you have, the greater the chance of a really bad disaster. If one of these is small enough to be thrown around by a tornado, you have new possibilities of a really bad disaster. (I didn't check. I assume it's too heavy. But perhaps it could be broken open.)

OTOH, smaller reactors have a smaller "worst possible case". I'm not really convinced that they're a good idea, but I could be. (If it's intended for use in space, what happens if there's a catastrophic launch explosion? That might be a good use, if they can handle the heat, but I'd prefer that the fuel be mined on the moon.) Low probability accidents that are possible WILL eventually happen. (Or at least one should plan that way.)

It's a new model, so the only way to really know whether it's safe or not is to try. But modelling gives VERY useful indications.

WHY is it wonderful news? The reports I've seen say that small reactors are less efficient than larger reactors and have increased chance of dangerous results (though the size of the danger is smaller).

Just asserting that it *is* wonderful gives me no reason to believe you.

I "sort of" agree. But my estimate of this is low enough (cost-including-pollution vs benefits) that I don't think it should be subsidized including being granted favorable legal treatment. In fact I'd be in favor of eliminating bankruptcy protections for any damage it causes.

And how is this any more compelled speech than having to show proof of your age to buy tobacco or alcohol? In all cases you have a choice: prove your age to the seller's statisfaction or don't buy.