Have they figured out how to use the mycelium to create a means of transportation across the vast distances of the universe?

Starlord will be mighty disappointed once he's unsnapped.

The article was first published on March 25, so not April Fools.

Every major western civilized country lacks replacement level reproduction already (US population hasn't tanked due to immigration). If real male contraception becomes a thing you should fully expect to see our population levels crash. There was a survey done by a woman's magazine in England where fully 40% of the women surveyed admitted to having cheated on birth control or sabotaged his condom to get pregnant when their partner didn't want a child. More than 60% thought it was OK to convince a man they knew was not the father that he was the father of they preferred him to the real father.

In short, if men and women both have full agency over their reproductive ability, our population will absolutely crash and we're going to need a lot of robots to sustain our way of life and welfare systems.

but this is concerning because it used to be said that "the Internet views censorship as damage to the Network and routes around it." Now, TPTHB view censorship as a feature of the Network and embrace the power of networking effects to that end (See: Google Dragonfly in China, multiple social network sites banning, shadow-banning, "de-boosting", de-platforming or otherwise engaging in censorship of voices that don't conform to the worldview embraced by Silicon Valley).

Anyone else read Bajadasaurus as Badassasaurus? Maybe that's the name they'll use on the next dinosaur that has a mohawk.

I would argue that until I’m blue in the face that science fiction is the quintessence of being human in a sense.

He couldn't go even one interview without plugging Avatar . . .

The legalese that Dorsey put out means nothing so long as you use terms in ways that the general public does not -- but the general public believes that you have the same English definition that they use. Dorsey says that they downgrade hateful content. But what is his or his employee's definition of hateful? Take for instance some of the "punch a Nazi" or "punch a Fascist" crowd. People are more agreeable to using violence against "Nazis" but when you ask these people who is a "Nazi" or a "Facist" they will reply things like "Republicans" or "Conservatives" or basically anyone that doesn't agree with their world-view that everyone but white men are victims. They will say that punching "Nazis" or "Fascists" isn't about violence per se, but about denying their voice a platform to spread "hate" because "hateful language" is violence itself. The amount of Newspeak and NewThought that go on within the social media companies is damn scary.

Citations? What edits, if any, show that he manipulated content to misrepresent what people actually said?

You wrote about the left's discrimination, but there was no story linked to your post.

Congress is behind the times. We already had Marines in space combat in 1979 -- here's the documentary proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I think it means the court will likely uphold much of the ban (if it reaches the merits of the ban because it may be a moot question now). In order to obtain an injunction, the petitioning party must show that they are likely to prevail on the merits of the underlying case. The lower courts each found that the states and parties requesting the injunction were likely to prevail and thus granted the injunction. Since 5 SCOTUS justices lifted the injunction as to the primary part of the ban, it should mean that those justices do not believe the petitioning parties will prevail on the merits of the ban itself. That's a very simplistic analysis -- there are other prongs to the test as to whether to grant a preliminary injunction (for instance, the courts are supposed to balance the harms to each of the respective parties -- even if a party was likely to prevail on the merits a court may not put an injunction in place if it would result in irreparable harm to the opposing party. The 5 justices may have reasoned that the potential harm (say a terrorist attack) is too great an irreparable harm to maintain a preliminary injunction, even if they believed that the petitioning party would ultimately prevail). The Court has also asked the parties to brief the issue of mootness -- the original ban was supposed to expire in 90 days. Therefore, even if the SCOTUS lifted the injunction, there may not even be a ban to be enforced because the 90 days has run . . . and there wouldn't be a case or controversy for the court to rule on in the next session.

I call bullshit. Have you actually ever peddled a bike more than a couple miles? Doing any sort of extended exertion requires pacing. Sure, Olympic sprint cyclists can hit 45 mph in a velodrome for very SHORT distances, but they wouldn't dream of doing that for even a few short miles.

The Olympic men's individual road race, which is 152.5 miles, was won in a time of 6 hours, 23 minutes and 49 seconds in 2008 (let's round up to 6 hours and 24 minutes). That means he had an average speed of 23.83 mph. If the winning Olympic bike rider rode your hypothetical 100 mile trek at his best competitive speed, it would take him approximately 4 hours and 12 minutes. How long do you think it would take your average Joe or Jane to complete the same hundred mile journey? With water breaks and rest stops, I'd wager 6 to 7 hours.

that one can conveniently sell their soul to? (Johnny Cash's rendition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...)

I see that the IRS is eager to tax those who profited off of Bitcoin. Will they be retroactively reducing taxes and issuing refunds for everyone who took a loss on it as well? Only seems fair.