Hang on. How can a ship displace 250 tons but weigh 400 tons? Or is 250 t the displacement when empty, and 400 t the loaded weight?

One of the reasons the Hebrew text was stable was because they used checksums when copying. Each letter in the Hebrew alphabet is also used as a number. That made it easy to calculate checksums for each line of text.

They had a photo with an obscured face and the same photo with unobscured face in their training set. It seems obvious a computer can match those two. The solution would be to use unique photos, not uploaded anywhere, as the source for obscuration and only publish the obscured version.

At the same time, Twitter forces everything to be reduced to a soundbite. Something we could use less of.

Granted for the thrusters, but the problems with the harpoons didn't surface until the conclusion of a 9-year-long test of the flight spare in a vacuum. Should they have postponed the launch by 9 years?

If there was a failure, it wasn't a failure of mission control. Nothing they could have done would have changed the outcome.

The landing had a combination of problems. Harpoons and thrusters not firing (design flaws), and the landing zone having different geology than had been assumed (nobody had landed on a comet before, so no definitive data to go by).

Despite the problems, the mission gathered most of the data they wanted. Not an overwhelming fail by any stretch of the imagination.

The lander had batteries sized to provide enough power for the primary science objectives. What was lost was maybe 20% of the planned objectives, not "the majority".

An RTG would have been cool, but it'd have doubled the cost of the mission.

Rockets exploding while they're being prepared for a static test fire (or during any fueling operation) are very rare though. The last case was in the 1960s, I believe. So they might be making mistakes everyone else has known to avoid for 50 years.

Some developer snuck in a HCF instruction...

Meanwhile, one of the stages that landed successfully has seen 5 full-duration test firings since the landing. Maybe they actually designed the rocket for those loads instead of just winging it.

Those reports are incorrect. In this video you can see (a few minutes after the initial explosion) only the tower is left standing.
First explosion is the second stage. The first stage explodes right after that. A few seconds later you can see the payload fairing fall (it was held in place by the arms at the top of the tower), followed by the satellite exploding.

Depends on your method of ingestion of said cheese. Inhalation through the nose is a red flag.

The cost of the propellant is irrelevant. The goal is reusability. This is difficult because of the propellant mass fraction a rocket needs (i.e. the fraction of its launch mass dedicated to propellants). For a pure rocket this is in the region of 95%, so the entire rocket structure and payload must be crammed into the remaining 5%. This makes it difficult to do reusability, because heat shielding etc. eat into your already-tiny payload fraction.
When you can use atmospheric oxygen, the propellant mass fraction goes down, i.e. more of your launch weight can reach orbit. This makes it feasible to build a heavier structure that includes reusability features.