So many thing wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. Looks to me that it was more of an ego trip on the part of the author than a valid study.
First of all, cable is obviously a screw job. There is no way that I can pretend that cable has any merits. But still
NetFlix content is generally older than cable content. While Netflix is creating some new shows, it is unlikely that many people are signing up for NetFlix for their "look, we made a little show" content.
People who are watching NetFlix have to be paying for Internet too. And many pay for a faster speed than they otherwise would to watch NetFlix. So Internet prices should be considered. Once that is done, since NetFlix is watched less, it might even end up costing more per hour, but "per hour" is just stupid.
Computing the cost per hour is pointless. Both are unmetered. People turn cable on even though they might not be paying attention to it, it becomes just something that's there and might occasionally be interesting. The same isn't quite as true for NetFlix since you have to actively select what you want to see. But realistically NetFlix is likely watched less simply because there is less to watch. If NetFlix had live shows such as news feeds then it might get watched more in a month making its meaningless "hourly cost" less, but it does not.
All that you can really say is that cable is more expensive than NetFlix, as long as you are not getting screwed too bad on Internet access.
"The TSA's job is to make airline passengers feel safer
Yea, right. I'm going to feel safer with these obvious deviants and criminals groping me, taking dirty pictures of my family, and stealing what they can from my luggage? I simply refuse to fly any more.
H2 doesn't use more oxygen than hyrdocarbons when burning,
I thought that much was obvious, but for those who have not been paying attention, we are close to using up our hydrocarbons. And we have scientists talking about ways to store the resulting CO2 rather than let it stay in the atmosphere for eventual photosynthesis. So now if we have found a fresh source of hydrogen, will we not exploit it to further extremes? How much breathable oxygen will that use up in a world that is said to already be past its tipping point?
Worse yet is that the tests are based on 100% gasoline. But meanwhile the congress is passing laws that effectively force (or at least subsidize) the fuel companies to sell up 90% gasoline contaminated with 10% alcohol. I'm sure someone with no real knowledge about this will want to post how there is "only" a 3% energy content difference, but in my experience that is complete bullshit. You can still buy 100% gasoline if you are willing to pay a premium for it (see http://www.pure-gas.org/) but that premium is much greater than 10%, often 30% or higher. I've found that, for my 2013 vehicle, if I buy 100% gasoline that I get at least 15% better mileage, some times as much as 20% better than alcohol diluted gas. So I would be much better off if the oil companies simply sold me 9/10 of a gallon of gasoline for the price of a gallon rather than selling me 9/10 of a gallon poisoned with 1/10 of a gallon of alcohol. I would get better mileage, I wouldn't have to lug around the extra weight of the unwanted alcohol, and I could put more real gasoline in my tank, giving me a better range. But because of the political clout of some farmers in Iowa and Arthur Daniels Midland Corporation, I have to pay to have my gasoline watered down with alcohol.
And, of course, this doesn't even consider the insanity of driving up food prices and forcing us to waste grain for political reasons rather than using it for food. I'm not going to give you some bullshit about starving kids in Africa (there will always be starving kids in Africa), but I've seen prices for my own food and my dog's food (no matter if I feed him something that includes corn or not) driven up just by the extra demands for corn this stupid policy causes.
If invisible to humans, the power could also be increased without danger of harming someone
You got it. If you can't see it then it can't hurt you. Or at least you can't protect yourself from it and will have a hard time proving that we were the one who did something to you.
The reason for the order was not known due to legal secrecy in an ongoing case
That's strange, because I know what the article author claims not to know. Brazil wants information that they can't legally get. So they are (illegally) forcing a shut down of Whatsapp to put pressure on Facebook to try to get the information. If that works Watsapp will be turned on again. If it doesn't work and there isn't a lot of blow back from the population, then Facebook itself may be next, but in reality they expect that shutting down Facebook would draw too much attention to their tactics so it is unlikely to occur.
Never let someone who says it cannot be done interrupt the person who is doing it.