... won't it have racial bias or something?!?

I mean, isn't (species) diversity our strength or something?? ;)

You are right. I did not read your post carefully enough. Apologies for unintentionally misrepresenting what you said.

Because nobody inhibits your reality. More so, Wikipedia feeds into a lot of search and AI results, so bias created there does not stay there.

For the same reason you think the New York Times should be citable. For example, NYP was the key in breaking Hunter Biden laptop story, without ability to cite NYP you have no way to substantiate Biden scandals.

Yes, they did invoke the act, but the rationale is that activist judges are deliberately trying to slow down his agenda. That is, delaying deportations by a year or two while hearing on authority and appeals play out is not reasonable when it is obvious that Trump Administration has authority and mandate to deport illegal immigrants.

First, if you're in the office, the boss can see you. Assuming, of course, that the boss is in the office.

second, who spends all their time in Teams? No work gets done there - if I'm not actively using it, it is closed.

For you hard-core Microsoft users, what could that corporate monstrosity possibly do to you that would make you FINALLY say "they've finally crossed the line! I am done!"?

Microsoft started out (in the PC context) providing a good command line based OS called MS-DOS that mostly just did what a simple OS should: provides some basic functionality to allow applications to run with a bit of system abstraction so the same code could run on systems with varying hardware configurations and sparing developers from having to code everything to-the-metal.

When the Mac threatened to up-end their world, Microsoft provided a crappy (but in-color) alternative they called "Windows" which eventually grew-up to be what a modern OS should be (the aforementioned hardware abstraction, but now aided by drivers etc) and the support for multi-tasking with the OS managing the shared resources. With Windows 3.11 they finally finished the move to a modern OS by adding networking support.

Follow-on updates were generally nice gradual improvements most users CHOSE to upgrade to as people moved up to Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 2000 etc always getting better graphics, stability, support for new hardware and newer standards, etc.... until Windows XP, Up until this moment, nobody FORCED customers to do anything, they CHOSE to move to newer versions because the newer versions offered enough value to convince them to part with their money... it was a good value proposition. With XP Microsoft started requiring the OS to "phone home" to the Mothership (but only for installation). This was the moment Microsoft made it clear THEY were in control of your PC... since it had to phone home to authorize the install, this meant that at some future time (which did indeed arrive) they could shut off the authorizing systems and you would no longer be able to re-install that version which you had purchased and if you wanted to keep using your PC you would be FORCED to buy a newer version.

THIS was the dividing line in time. From this point on, Microsoft went full-on arrogant and presumed THEY own your PC and THEY can jerk you around.

With every subsequent release of Windows, Microsoft has FORCED people to upgrade, FORCED hardware obsolescence (driving countless tons of perfectly good electronics into landfills), FORCED software incompatibilities (new OS version -> new Microsoft app version -> new Microsoft app file formats...) and made the OS phone-home more invasive. When they started snooping on keystrokes and mouse movements, people got over the shock pretty quickly and continued using the newer versions like some sort of dysfunctional drug addicts encountering a new side-effect. Now with forced online accounts, "cloud" storage/backups (oooooh, it's so FLUFFY!) people are losing sensitivity to who has their data and where it's stored and who might access it....

Just where is the limit on how evil Microsoft can go before people say "nope. This far, but no further"???

I'm personally disgusted by how much of corporate America (and particularly governments and Medical facilities) have gone along with all of this to the point where HIPAA and even Constitutional rights are no longer in-force. When governments and medical facilities put your private and sensitive info into systems running Windows and constantly phoning home to the Microsoft Mothership and servers, just where is the guarantee of security and privacy? Just what redress is available if any of it is compromised, and will anybody even know if it is compromised? Do people at Microsoft or in government even acknowledge that such things ARE "compromises" when they become design features? Just how secure is YOUR data in a Microsoft cloud if a very powerful and important Microsoft customer (the US government? China's communist party?) demands Microsoft grant them access? Certainly Microsoft values those big customers more than it values YOU and possibly your small business. Are YOUR small business's intellectual property secrets safe and secure on a Windows PC tethered to the Microsoft Mothership and how do you know if Microsoft is accessing that info for its own use, or to sell/trade it to some more important [to THEM] entity like the Chinese or Indian government?

NONE of these things were possible on good old MS-DOS. All of these things are possible on Windows 11. When will people decide to break the habit, free themselves from the addiction, and get clean?

Yes, it is.
But there are first and second losers.

Tianamen Square ?

If the Great Leap Forward with its mass starvation (most likely the worst in human history) didn't lead to a change, you seriously think that a few export problems will?

1. Who made it "the Gulf of Mexico"? Why did somebody arbitrarily naming it for Mexico (Mexico does NOT own it, and the US has more coastline with it) make it a fixed and unchangeable thing to you? It was actually refreshing to see Trump call this one out. There was never a good reason to call it the "Gulf of Mexico", and in this era where China is trying (on the global stage) to set a precedent that they can demand the world recognize their ownership of the body of international water traditionally called "The South China Sea" simply because the word "China" is in the title, Trump's action sets up a whataboutism for all those in the spineless international diplomacy arena (who would likely immediately fold in the face of China) to have to face. The fact that his challenging of a stupid old thing nobody had ever codified into law (thus leaving it as only a goofy tradition) has suddenly made people within whose heads he clearly resides go completely whacko was just a bonus.

2. Freedom Fries... ahhh yes, so after a few years you finally get the joke? Too bad so many on your side of the aisle spend so much time working themselves into a froth of outrage and are unable to see when the Bad Orange Man is just kidding around. He's not really that hard to understand; you guys used to not react this way back in the decades when he was a Democrat.

3. "extrajudicial murder"? Really wanna go there? Were you outraged when Bill Clinton distracted the nation during the Monica Lewinski affair by bombing an aspirin factory in Sudan? Were you fine with Obama droning an American citizen to death? The Council on Foreign Relations (hardly some pro-Trump outfit) says "The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians." I think that about does it for being hyper-freaked-out over ANY "extra-judicial murder[s]" by Trump.

4. "Hypernationalistic renaming of bodies of water"? Just what the hell is the difference between renaming something and hypernationalistically renaming it? And just why the hell is it OK to name it for the nation of Mexico, but some fundamental challenge to planetary norms to name it for America (which, by the way, is a term that not only applies to the USA, but also generically to "the Americas", which INCLUDES Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, etc). Why is it some freak-out thing to have somebody rename a thing (oooh, without an international committee at the UN!) but NOT the same problem when somebody names it in the first place without said international thingamajig? Do you have ANY evidence that renaming a body of water has EVER lead to either World War III or the re-instatement of the military draft in the history of the human race?

Oh, I get it. Orange Man Bad!!!! Mental illness is the new norm!

Seek professional help, there seems to be a real estate developer and former reality TV guy living in your head.

Can we put an end to the using different names for the same job based on the country the people are from? It was "cute" when there were only "astronauts" and "cosmonauts" but it's not cute any more. China has astronauts. Russia has astronauts. If you speak American then everyone has astronauts.

With that rant out of the way...

It is curious to see use of liquid methane as fuel. This appears to be a trend. Maybe they are just copying Elon's homework without understanding the reason for using methane, or maybe they did the same math to come to the same conclusions.

It is amazing to see how quickly China is advancing in technology and manufacturing capacity. They can no longer be dismissed as a backward nation. A problem for the CCP is that as they build up a skilled labor force, manufacturing, and so much else that comes with a nation that can support a space exploration program, is that it will be difficult to contain the flow of information in order to control the people. I expect things to get "interesting" with China soon. There's a saying about living in interesting times...

I believe he did pick a lane. He chose to stay in his lane on the study of insects than get out of his lane and comment on global warming.

I'll see criticisms of Dr. David JC MacKay getting out of his lane on global warming, and this expert on insects might want to avoid similar criticisms. Even then the criticisms of Dr. David JC MacKay doesn't really follow. MacKay wrote his paper on sustainable energy with the assumption that global warming is a problem and CO2 emissions from human activity is the primary cause. MacKay was a professor in physics, engineering, and mathematics. He was looking at some numbers and technology to establish for people the best options for reducing CO2 emissions.

What is an expert on insects to offer in commentary on global warming? Maybe there is something but I'm missing it. It appears that if he has anything to say on global warming then it will have to wait until spring to see if the mosquito population survives the winter. Even that will trigger shouts of how weather is not climate.

How much is it worth to avoid global warming? How long do we have to reduce CO2 emissions before the costs of global warming make nuclear power plants look cheap by comparison?

I'll see people claim that we don't need nuclear power to reduce our CO2 emissions, we can use wind, water, and sun instead. It would appear that France did quite well in lowering their CO2 emissions with nuclear power. France has lower electricity rates than Germany. This is the part where someone will defend Germany's electricity rates as being influenced more by taxes on the electricity than the actual costs. Okay then, how about some kind of study into the actual costs rather than the after tax rates?

When it comes to build times we can find a global average between 7 and 8 years, not great but not bad for a project the size of a power plant. It's not like windmills pop up overnight.

Cost and build time can be reduced by gaining experience, and there's no other means to gain experience but to build a nuclear power plant. It's as if the anti-nuclear people know this and so they must not allow a nuclear power plant to be built anywhere in the world as that could prove them wrong. Well, we've seen a few new nuclear power plants built elsewhere in the world, and the claims on costs and build times have been proven wrong.

It's pretty clear the mosquitoes were stowaways. Hands up all those that believe a polar bear was able to sneak onto a boat to get to Iceland?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/p...

They will look for mosquitoes again in the spring to see if they can survive the winter. Do we need a show of hands on if polar bears can survive the winter in Iceland?

I believe Iceland should be the host of the United Nations, that way when there's a debate on global warming they can ask the locals which concerns them more, the polar bears reaching the island on icebergs? Or the mosquitoes that hitch a ride on boats and aircraft?

Wind, solar, and batteries isn't likely to get an electrical grid as close to zero carbon as France sees with heavy use of nuclear fission. It's a good thing then that Texas has plans for more nuclear power plants.
https://texasinsider.org/artic...

If the claims on solar+storage being lower cost than nuclear then I guess the anti-nuclear solar power advocates have nothing to worry about, nobody will build a nuclear power plant if they can get solar at lower cost. Why is it always solar+storage vs. nuclear fission? Why not solar+storage vs. nuclear+storage? A common complaint about nuclear power plants is how poorly they can load follow. At the same time solar+storage is praised for how well they follow load.

When a cost analysis like LCOE is done there's always assumptions on how the rest of the electrical grid will react to adding more generating capacity. I'd like to see an analysis that assumes there's energy storage already on the grid, or perhaps some technologies with similar effects like time shifting loads (timers on dishwashers, demand sensing air conditioners, "smart" EV chargers, and so on), to put both on a (more) level playing field. Utility scale energy storage isn't exactly new, we are just using more of it now as a matter of energy efficiency and to accommodate the intermittent nature of wind and solar power.

How old is utility scale energy storage? Looks to be about 100 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It might be time to change the LCOE pricing models now, the spread of energy storage is likely causing the model to drift from reality.