A point, but that's a place the "selection" part of evolution comes in.

I said "good method". There are lots of ways to estimate things. And using the best methods for cells, some cells will be estimated older than other cells in the same body. Many estimates rely on epigenetic markers, but those can be removed either artificially or by normal processes...but that doesn't make the cell actually younger, and here by "younger" I mean "more error free" (i.e. more similar to the initial cell from which the body was generated [and "similar" is tricky to define in this context]), what it does is allow cells that have been marked "dubious" for one reason or another to begin reproducing again. DNA copying is NOT perfect. Each cell in your body is most likely mutated from the original cell. Most (surviving) mutants are harmless, but some aren't. So cells that have reproduced the "estimated maximum safe number of times" stop dividing. (There are exceptions, like the cells linking the intestines, but those are kept to as minimal a number as is feasible.)

I had just mentioned the reason:
Cells tend to accumulate mutations. This is especially true each time they divide. And this is well known. If your evolutionary line didn't include a such a limit, you would likely not be around due to any of a number of problems, cancer among them.

There is no good marker for the "age" of a cell. Mutations tend to accumulate over life, and there's a reason for the Hayflick limit (even if it isn't universal).

Manipulating cells so that they will continue dividing is dangerous to whoever gets them. It may be necessary, but don't fool yourself about its danger. This sounds like a recipe for brain cancer.

Who is this "they"? A story I read yesterday said that PHP was being maintained by a single maintainer.

FWIW, I have a version of Debian from around 2000 that still runs. I *do* have it isolated from the internet.

Actually, and IIUC, they can do that now with proper prompting. They just make mistakes about what the universe is like. World models should be fixing that within the next year.

It's already "you get accused of", not "there is clear proof of". I've known some really bad writers that made worse world model mistakes than are typical of a wlll-prompted recent AI. (Actually, I've read some good authors who also make that kind of mistake, the difference is that do it on purpose and it fits well into the story.)

IIUC, that was a (large scale) experiment. Maybe it will work, but maintenance may be too expensive.

Sorry, but the moon has LOTS of real value. The far side, e.g., is an ideal place to set up a large radio-telescope. It's got lots of useful materials for building things for local use. It's missing a few things that we need, like air and water, so that problem needs to be handled. But it's got a low enough gravity that a "lunar launcher" is actually practical...at least probably.

Orbital velocity is "half-way to anywhere", but there isn't much there to build stuff out of.

All that said, I'm not really convinced that our technology is yet up to the job. There's considerably too much handwaving around the details, and it's not going to be cheap. This only makes sense as a part of a long-term project...and we've got a bad track record on those. (OTOH, I didn't watch the megalithic structures being built. Perhaps they were also built in surges.)

IIUC, there isn't enough water on the moon to pay for using it as rocket fuel. There are doubts that there's enough to sustain a lunar colony. Better have a backup plan for extracting it from rocks. (This can be done, with many kinds of rock, but it's not cheap.)

Of course, we don't really know what the subsurface is like. There could be lots of water. But that's not the way to bet. A better source is probably the asteroids beyond the frost line. That requires technology than we don't have yet, but probably not anything that fancy. The problem is surviving until the basics get set up. (This, of course, assumes we don't waste the minimal resources that are currently "almost available".)

I think what people are finding dubious is the "plausible intended use".

Could be a touch screen.
Actually, any controller would work. With sufficient computation it could use a voice controller.

the climate doesn't care.
if the answer is that everyone, China, India, all of Africa is allowed to have Western European per capita GHG emissions before we take significant action to reduce emissions enough to mitigate global warming, we may as well not bother.

I know you think that makes sense, but I can't parse it into something sensible. It sounds like you're saying "Russia was a conquering empire while it was being conquered by outsiders."
Perhaps you mean something like "The conquerors of Russia were a conquering empire and they established permanent dominance over Russia." Which I think is true, but that doesn't have Russia being a conquering empire throughout history. A source says some of the Tsars were descendants of Viking Chieftans from the Ukraine. (It also says "they were invited to rule", but I suspect "invite" is a very "diplomatic truth".) Being taken over by someone doesn't make you a conquering empire, even if they bring an army along.

"Remind us again, how long as Biden been out of office now?"
I'm surprised no one is blaming FDR