In the grand scheme of things, I'd probably rather have catastrophic failure of a wind turbine in my general area than just about any other source of power generation.

Search engines and indexers are treated differently under the law, and there seems to be some distinction based on whether a major/primary purpose of the site is to serve harmful/pornographic material. But, yeah, it seems squishy enough that if enough people start complaining to the media or politicians about how their kids are able to do a Google Images search for "boobs", maybe Google would be in the crosshairs.

My sense is that Ofcom is cultivating public opinion by first going after sites that are pretty unambiguously serving non-child-friendly content (Pornhub, 4chan), but even then I don't think they could weather the backlash of it being required to verify your age to do a Google search.

Another commenter already mentioned "Citizens United", but in the vein of money in politics, I'll tack on "FEC v. Ted Cruz". In 2024 the court decided that candidates can raise money after they're already been elected to repay an unlimited loan that they've given to their own campaign (with interest).

On voting rights, my favorite is "Rucho v. Common Cause", which gave the greenlight for partisan gerrymandering.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

It's limited to sites which allow harmful or pornographic content. But otherwise, yes, that is exactly the matter at issue.

I expect they could successfully take control of the oil terminals on Kharg Island.

3He is an isotope of Helium with one fewer neutron than the normal 4He.

I think Apple's advantage here, which will be very difficult for others to replicate, is that the unit cost of the A18 Pro SoC (CPU, memory, and graphics) is probably outrageously low. They're already manufacturing bajillions of the things for their smartphones and I'm sure they have a favorable arrangement with TSMC. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the whole logic board costs 50 bucks.

Is producing plutonium really that important? I think the EU could establish a perfectly effective nuclear deterrent with Uranium bombs. I have no doubt they can figure out enrichment.

I'm sure big pharma would love this. Why sell patients a single shot that offers them a year or more of protection when instead you can sell them a test and treatment that they need to buy every time they get sick?

What makes you say that?

I just looked at the spray bottle of weed killer I bought last summer: "Roundup Total Weedkiller" - active ingredient "7.2 g/L of glyphosate as a ready to use solution".

There are many issues with the post you're responding to, but that isn't one of them. The ruling political party of China refers to itself as the "Communist Party of China" in English.

I can no longer tell whether you're advocating for a test of the new vaccine against a placebo, or of not testing the new vaccine at all. The risk to study participants of using their bodies as the "lab" for testing the vaccine has nothing to do with whether other trial participants receive a placebo. That risk is controlled by doing stage 1/2 trials at small scale to confirm safety before you move on to a stage 3 trial (subject of this article) at a wider scale to measure efficacy.

I think you're basically describing the natural experiment we run on already-approved vaccines every flu season. Some people get the shot, some people choose not to, and health agencies measure the proportion of each population that end up with the flu.

That's certainly an informative exercise, but I don't see what value it would add to simulate that experiment as a part of the new vaccine approval process, even if we disregard or solve the ethical question. If the natural experiment shows that established vaccines are more effective than being unvaccinated, and the stage 3 trial shows that the new vaccine is more effective than the established vaccines, what are we missing?