Looks like they caught one of the hundreds of thousands of people that must be doing this same sort of thing. Most of the others just aren't making quite that much money doing it.

Most likely they meant that unemployment (or something similar) increased by 20%

Did you post this also when Musk said THE EXACT SAME THING?????

Unemployed people can't buy stocks.

More seriously, both this and Musk sound like the government seizing company assets and distributing it evenly to everybody. This is basically UBI, and it is a huge tax no matter how it is collected. It may work however, needs to be investigated with some seriousness and by people without preconceived notions of what will happen.

I'm pretty certain a robot will be able to dig ditches

The difference has nothing to do with the knowledge.

In the stock market, the money put in is actually used to advance the value of the stock. It's an investment just like you paying somebody to make widgets (that manufacturer could screw up his work and lose all your money, but that possibility does not make it gambling). In polymarket the money you put in is not used in any way to advance the outcome you are betting on.

"Protect" does not mean "it is impossible for you to get it". It means "it is less likely you will get it". You know that but you just want to rant and lie as it somehow makes you feel better. You are a sick loser.

I don't know what media you are watching, but every report I have seen is pointing out how unlikely spread of this will be. And this is reports from a variety of politically leaning media so it isn't even a polarizing issue.

All configuration options are under control of system administrator. Yet somehow there are still plenty of security issues caused by bad configuration.

To err is human.

Or a variant that's closer to Ebola Reston. Airborne, 100% fatality rate (so far only in a couple species of monkeys. So far...)

"It doesn't make difference what you use: a pot with hermetic lid - or a strainer. Because it's water and water's wet."

Remember the old times when kernel modules were considered a security risk, thus disabled altogether?

When OpenBSD was boasting its monolithic kernel as a security features?

IIRC, some commercial *nix OSs didn't had modules for reasons of being archaic fossils. But then more recently, couple decades later, also rebranded it into a safety and a security feature.

I looked up the figures a few days ago - but having since driven to the other end of the country, I've forgotten the precise details. IIRC it was something like Goofy having a higher aphelion - so most of the time (and length of orbital arc) it is going to be further out than Pluto (by a few %, but it also has higher eccentricity, so it's aphelion is lower than Pluto's (and indeed, Neptune's ; which is also true for Pluto). Since orbiting objects travel faster at aphelion than perihelion, that makes the average orbital period of Pluto and Goofy the same (or their year the same, or their semi-major axis the same ; these all mean the same thing) despite Goofy travelling further per orbit than Pluto, with a faster arc near perihelion.

You see the same sort of thing with, say, Uranus, Neptune, and 1P/Halley ; Halley and Uranus have quite similar orbital periods, but Halley's aphelion is well out beyond Neptune's orbit. the long period it spends out there is counterbalanced by the 3 year long Sun-dive it does form (approximately) Saturn's orbit, to the Sun, and back out to Saturn's orbit.50-odd% of it's orbital path followed in about 5% of it's orbital period.

Just because Newton's laws are quite simple, doesn't mean that their consequences are simple. Just ask (if you can get his bones to talk) one J. Kepler, who had to work out the orbits from raw observational data, unsullied by Newton's theoretical framework.

(It still sometimes astonishes me that there is no simple way to calculate the length of an arc of an ellipse or it's total perimeter - you have to do a really complicated, progressive approximation calculation for each specific shape of ellipse. Which, when you realise that Kepler would have had to make hundreds (thousands?) of such approximations while reducing Brahe's data, explains why Kepler came up with at least one relatively good approximation to the length of an ellipse's perimeter.)

hey combine hydrogen from with carbon dioxide,

Hydrogen from what or where?
If, like almost all *industrial* hydrogen, it comes from cracking natural gas, that's as something pure magenta (whatever the complimentary colour to green is).
(Our "analytical grade" hydrogen was probably sourced from electrolysis - certainly when we made it on site, it was ; but that was substantial cost of equipment and maintenance time. Our systems really cared about contaminants at the part-per-million level.)

A propos not a lot - my BOINC installation of "Asteroids@Home" has just started kicking through computations for the first time in ages. (BOINC is an indirect descendent of the SETI@Home project, generalised for a variety of distributable computation projects ; Asteroids@Home is a project that "uses power of volunteers' computers to solve the lightcurve inversion problem for many asteroids." Lightcurves are brightness versus time ; once you correct for distance asteroid to Sun and asteroid to Earth, the cross-section illuminated and rotation speed drop out - after considerable maths.

Probably someone has posted a new batch of data on something's light curve, and the rotation speed and/ or shape model is being re-analysed.

It's a small contribution.

I just find it absurd to demote Pluto to a non planet and then classify other climbs as Plutino, is pretty inconsistent.

IIRC, the term "plutino" was being used *before* the 2006 (?) IAU definition. Cart and horse sequence race condition.

But then again: you could call them Neptino, or something, or? And Pluto would be a Neptino,too.

There are bodies in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune. And other bodies in a 5:3 resonance (while 6:3 or 3:1 resonances are relatively empty : see "Kirkwood gaps" in the asteroid belt - same physics, different dominant body (Jupiter) and swarm of "test particles". And other bodies in 7:2 resonances. I can't remember the name of such a body (and can't be bothered to research it) so in keeping with other cartoon dogs, let's consider this to have a largest member "Scooby" and call these "scoobinos" (it's a class, not a proper noun, so no capitalisation).

By your naming convention, these too would be called "neptinos" (no capital), with no distinction from the 3:2 "peptinos" generally known as "plutinos". By the naming convention I describe, and which is actually being used, "plutinos" are a distinct (if related) class to "scoobinos".

It's a nomenclature - it's intended to describe meaningful (to a certain class of people, KBO astronmers, for example) differences in a compact, memorable manner.