AND it screams like the batmobile.

When you charge a battery you burn some energy in processing. Does your battery have more energy than you put into it? Unlikely. You created something expensive with less stored energy than the raw materials. Who is going to buy your new more expensive energy?

Synthetic fuel is gasoline. It's just as energy dense. Or you can make tweak it and make it more energy dense if you want to. Of course you lose some energy transforming it. You always do. Form factor is important.

It was a 72m mast for a 56m boat. Nowhere did I say it was the tallest mast, only that it was oversized for the boat.

Yes, and this is wrong. A mast to length ratio of ~1.3 is pretty typical for sloops. This one is a bit under that.

The max speed of the Bayesian was 12 knots.

The maximum speed of a pure displacement hull is pretty much set by the length of the boat. Better upwind characteristics can mean you get where you're going quite a bit faster. It's also a characteristic that's very desireable to sailors who enjoy sailing.

You seem to know very little about sailing.

It is temperature in the usual sense. It's possible you think of temperature as a synonym for heat, or energy though, which it is not.

We do, in fact, have distinct units: Kelvin or Celsius for temperature, Joules for heat and energy.

Baryonic dark matter was the first thing that was considered, and every version of it you can imagine has been studied. The "arguments" that it's not baryonic are based on all those observations that exclude various possibilities.

You've got to land propulsively on the moon, and Starship's redundancy is an advantage there. Earth is a different matter though. I hope you're wrong, since propulsive landing is probably necessary for cheap human access to space via rocket, but it's going to be a long slog to achieve, then demonstrate the required reliability.

The mast wasn't "ridiculously oversized." Despite the media hype it's not even particularly tall, being 70 m to the 90 m record.

The builder made several similar boats but this one was made as a sloop instead of a ketch at the buyer's request. There are reasons to prefer a sloop to a ketch rig, the main one being better upwind performance.

The buyer, Eric Jelgersma, was paralyzed in a sailing accident in 2005 so he seems not to have been the type to just sip drinks on the yacht. It's quite possible he wanted the sloop for the sailing characteristics.

The salvage isn't really part of the investigation. It's cleanup. The same as if you crash your car into a ditch someone comes and hauls it away. The insurance company pays.

Governments genearally pay for investigations. People generally think they're important, especially when people die.

If we went back in time to the 1980s would you be saying even a non-singular black hole is just too far outside the Overton Window for most physicists?

No.

How do you know the limits you set now, which have moved so far, won't move towards zero size and infinite densities in another few decades?

Because infinities in a physical theory aren't "oh, that's very extreme, I don't know," they signify a breakdown in the predictive capability of a theory: i.e. the one thing it's supposed to do.

We "created" artificial intelligence in the 50s. You're taking your definition of the term from science fiction. Emphasis on the last word in that sentence.

The booster has had at least one failed relight on every landing, improving to just a single one on the last launch. That's probably okay for cargo, but not for people.

Very few physicists really believe that a black hole has a singularity. Things like infinite density and zero size usually indicate you've pushed your theory too far. And from the outside everything looks like its piled up on the horizon, so it would be pretty strange to observe it whipping around at faster than the speed of light.

The singularity comes from an interpretation of an infalling observer's point of view, and Roy Kerr, the guy who came up with the solution for a rotating black hole, pretty vehemently disagrees that even that POV implies a singularity. Also, rotating black holes wouldn't have a point singularity anyway, but a ring. Also also, if a black hole spun too fast the event horizon would disappear.

The engine has a lot of special demands on it. It's a great engine, and it's made big improvements recently, but it's got a way to go before it relights reliably enough. Especially if they want to put humans on it for landing.

If anything, reusable heat shields have proven to be harder than engines, as nobody has designed one that really works well yet, possibly with the exception of the small unmanned X-37.

And that's why these accidents are bad. They're preventing progress on the parts that actually require the most innovation.

The really funny thing is, if you give most people a 20 layer Tower of Hanoi problem and ask them to solve it you'll get something that you might call "complete performance collapse."

The people who get to administer such tests usually refer to it by terms like "you've got to be fucking kidding" or similar.

You make a case for not allowing laymen access to scientific research. "Artificial intelligence" is a fairly well defined technical term. Your point is that it is confusing for the uneducated.

I disagree. It's important that the public be allowed access to scientific research, not only because they pay for most of it, but aslo as it is a collective endeavour of humanity, and everyone should be given as much opportunity as practical to educate themselves.