You know enough to be dangerous. Yes biodiversity was higher in the distance past when the Earth was warmer, but even more telling is what happened in the distant past when the Earth warmed at a very fast rate. The Permian–Triassic extinction was likely caused by an approximately 10 degree warming event that took place over tens of thousands of years. That lead to the extinction of almost all life on Earth. The current warming trend that the Earth is in is much faster than the trend associated with the Permian-Triassic extinction, and the obvious concern should be that this will lead to an even larger extinction event than the Permian-Triassic extinction. Plants can only migrate at a certain rate. Similarly for animals. Most won't be able to adapt, causing ecosystem failures. Maybe 99.9% of life will go extinct, who knows. Let's just dive right in!

Random fact: You can easily spot the Permian-Triassic sediment deposits because there are two layers: (i) the Permian layer is loaded with fossils, and (ii) the next layer has only sand stone. Why? When almost all of the plants and animals die, all that is left is a giant dust bowl.

Indeed very interesting - their approach seems sound and modern. First, they remove the non-essential features from the filesystem to keep it lean. They could be possibly reimplemented on top of the filesystem. And second, they mention using B+trees and allocate-on-write principle, which some modern filesystems use - Reiser4 springs to mind.

Interesting project to follow (and imitate in open source).

Not unlikely. Although there does not seem to be any legal ruling that mandates this, this claim is mentioned here and on Wikipedia.

The article you are linking to actually talks about banning APPLES (the fruit) imported from the US in Taiwan. You probably wanted to refer to the ban of selling some Apple products in South Korea, which is seeked by Samsung. This ban, however, did not happen so far it seems.

Strongly statically typed languages tend to generate faster, more correct machine code. Thanks to type inference and soft typing, such languages also do not require more coding because types do not have to be written by the programmer (type inference) and type errors do not need to be worked around if the code is in fact correct (soft typing). In fact, soft typing demonstrates that the distinction between static and dynamic typing can be blurred.

So on what grounds do you make the claim that strongly statically typed languages are not objectively better?

the article says they would only need a few seconds to be fully charged...
...and will require massive transformers to perform it.