There's a big difference between being able to prove (an aspect of) code correct, and being unable to prove it incorrect.
The author doesn't not seem to be aware of the difference.

Does anyone have knowledge on how well this actually works in practice? I note that many of the non-Tesla cars have the charger ports on the front left of the car; the Tesla has it in the rear left and you are supposed to back the car into the stall, meaning the charging port aligns with the right side of the stall, which is also where the charging station (with short cables, I hear) sits. Can the Supercharger cable actually reach form the charging station to, say, a Lyric's charging port?

I am so relieved! If Musk says itâ(TM)ll happen in a year, then we should be safe for at least a decade, if not more.

By banning pairing, this bill makes it valuable again to steal my iPhone and gut it for parts. Thanks so much!

How does it power itself?
Do you just tie on a AA battery?
"Microchip" is kinda meaningless if it cannot actually power itself...

Showing my age here, but when I was in high school, I did the teaching. Mostly to fellow students, but I did have two of the math & physics teachers in my "class" off and on. I taught Pascal on an Apple II. A little later, the high school down the road from mine actually set up proper programming classes (teaching Basic on Commodore computers). A bunch of work colleagues who are about my own age had similar experiences -- few high schools were set up to teach anything about computers at the time, so the nerds amongst us got to see the "other side" of teaching.

Which would be consistent with the iPhone doing very well in European countries where either the carrier was better then AT&T, or where there was a choice of carriers.

Could be the iPhone carrier -- for the longest time, there was only AT&T, and I know many people who really wanted an iPhone but refused to get it via AT&T. Some of them picked an Android phone instead.
For the iPad, choice of cellular carrier may not be that important (different usage model), which might explain why people aren't looking that hard for alternatives.

If it requires software changes that are not 100% automated, then this won't fly. Programmers have a hard enough time writing sequential programs, let alone multithreaded ones. Now they're supposed to also foresee and check hardware errors? I think not.
I note that the entire idea hinges on the s/w component, yet the article hides the complexity under the harmless-sounding term "robustification".
Another idea from the ivory towers that is good at generating papers, but not actual machines. IMHO.

Now just what makes you believe that atheists think life is futile? That's a pretty bigoted view...

So the public at large funds universities so those can do research, which they then patent so that it costs the public more money to use the patents than had they been public domain.

Personally, I believe that there are two reasonable options:
(a) any research funded by public monies ought to be in the public domain, at least in the country of origin; or
(b) any proceeds from patent license fees (or lawsuits) ought to go back to the public purse, not directly into the university's pocket.

Plus, the public or its trusted (hah) representatives ought to have a say, for a given patent, whether to pursue (a) or (b); that way inventions (e.g., in the area of health care) that are really beneficial to the public can follow path (a) and encourage quick and widespread adoption.