I think it would be worth investigating whether any of the judges or those affiliated with the tournament (incl sponsors) had any bets on the outcome.

The whole thing looks like a very flimsy attempt to change the outcome of a tournament final, that no doubt had people betting on.
Given the guy was an underdog, I think it's fair to assume most bets would be on the other guy to win.

I know it says "up to", but how long will it take to launch that many? Assuming launches every day of the year, he'd need to launch about 274 per day to achieve the 1M in ten years. Are we talking tiny satellites here and you can pack hundreds into one launch?

Then there's the issue of putting so much garbage into space that we essentially block ourselves in - we end up with an orbit of garbage that no other vehicle can pass through safely. Or is that a non-issue because the orbit is so large?

I highly doubt they do this "reluctantly". Any excuse to get their hands on more information is welcomed by especially Google, an advertising company. The more they know about you, the more targeted the ads can be. I'm sure they have been dying to get laws that FORCE users to give them their actual birth date.

Whilst this is great for people who cannot communicate by other means, the potential downward spiral of this is frightening. Thought is the last bastion of freedom, you can think whatever you want, no limits. The development of this kind of tech will go from physically connected medical devices, to physically connected interrogation devices (if you don't consent, you're guilty, the whole "what do you have to hide if you're innocent" trope), then the leap to wireless devices and finally just scanners everywhere that scan people's thoughts. Feeling hungry? Here's an ad for your favourite food. Feeling angry, wishing you could just slap whoever cut you off in traffic? Here's an instant fine or arrest. A dystopian nightmare.

Not sure where you're coming from or why you are attacking me, as at no place have I said I should be in control or what should be regulated. I even mention the word censorship, of which I am most definitely not a fan.

I think it's not that difficult to determine what is BLATANTLY harmful for kids. Graphic depictions of death for example, like someone being beheaded or someone being smashed to bits in an accident. This kind of content should be behind an account requirement, much like it is now for some of this stuff.

I think we are getting into dangerous territory here. For many people, youtube has replaced or taken a share of traditional TV. It's a standard app on most if not all smart TVs. Requiring this age check would mean you need to make an account and then provide private details, yet your kids can still watch it. The only way to ensure nobody under 16 watches youtube is to introduce more surveillance (biometric checks when the app is started, periodic checks while watching), restrictions and privacy intrusions - conspiracy theorists will say this is the whole point.

I think rather than trying to restrict the audience, maybe youtube should be forced to better regulate its content and remove blatantly harmful content (but then we get into censorship territory), or require an account and age check when trying to watch said content, not as a blanket rule.

^ This. Microsoft does nothing for the user's benefit, only for its own. Which generally involves taking user's control away in some form or another. This is yet another example of that. I suggest people use a free program such as Macrium Reflect (free for personal use, paid for more features and corpo use) for their regular system backups if you want to retain full control over your rollbacks, regardless of age. I am not affiliated with them, but have used Macrium for many years. I'm sure there are plenty of other alternatives.

I thought that "making a copy" ie downloading copyrighted works without permission from the copyright holder is illegal. To not clog up the courts, generally the end user is left alone unless they made profit from the infringement or infringed copyright on a large scale. You could argue that both is true for Meta. So unless the law has changed, Meta is clearly guilty and should be made to compensate the right holders and pay fines or have the exec in charge go to jail, just like anyone else.

Otherwise anyone could just leech movies legally, by Meta's argument.

Meta is an advertising company, same as Google. Of course they want a screen that is as close to your eyes as possible so you cannot look away from it when they serve you ads. Their holy grail is ads served directly into your brain - after all, you can still take glasses off.

"...about the French nuclear industry's ability to build reactors on time and on schedule."

I guess they wanted to say "on time and in budget".

Most people who can drive a car can use buttons. Less may be able to use touchscreens. Even less can use voice control - I'm sure there are a high number of people in the world, maybe millions, who have some kind of speech impediment or are mute and therefore cannot use voice control. Add to those the people who are temporarily restricted (like having a bad sore throat, or swelling in the mouth or whatever).

All of these cannot use voice control.

Voice control is a nice addon feature for some situations, but should never be the primary control method for a car (and a lot of other devices).

I personally love physical buttons, I loathe touchscreens in the car.

Godzilla had a stroke reading this

If we are in a simulation, this simulation would most likely have to be completely dynamic, meaning we shape the environment through our actions. So whoever set this up, didn't pick the parameters that define the 2020s, but we got here on our own and continue to shape the simulated environment. The Sims on a realistic, global (or galactic) scale.

The ship uses Thorium to operate, which needs to be mined. Unless mining operations are fully electric, powered by renewables, there are emissions involved. So the claim of "zero emissions" for operating the ship are dubious.

Also, what happens to the used up Thorium? Is it similar to uranium that still needs to be stored safely due to remaining radioactivity? Neither article mentioned it.

I can see an issue with this if it's done at scale - coastal ocean regions being warmed by several degrees and killing off coral and other sensitive marine life. Which impacts the foodchain.

Another bonus is that once these things have reached their service life and are too expensive to remove/dispose properly, you just leave them to rot in the ocean! Out of sight, out of mind.