No surprise here. Why is this even news? Every product that uses memory is raising their prices. This "story" is merely Apple mollifying their customers.

Might check out this film: The Eagle Obsession.

(only in pre-release screening now, but there's a youtube preview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... )

Except, of course, for the front part, which was weirdly aerodynamic

Easy to do when you have no fuel tanks.

I have no idea how you calculated mass. But about a third of the vehicle (not including the detachable part) seems to be the landing pads, which doesn't seem very optimum.

Yes, the lack of fuel tanks is a real problem. Also, how do they fly? They only have engines in back, but they skim over the surface of the moon like they are levitating. What holds them up? When they blast off to go into deep space, do they rotate 90 degrees to point the main engines downward?

The headline says "sold at a loss", but the summary doesn't:

"the profit margin for China's auto industry plunged to 4.4 percent and dropped further to a historic low of 3.2 percent in early 2026."

Profit dropping is not the same as "sold at a loss."

Exactly. And even if the probability of an intersection is small... there's a lot of StarLink satellites

You know that as orbits decay the satellites move to lower orbits, right?

Starlink operational orbits are (slightly) higher than the ISS orbit. If they stop being operational, they will move through successively decreasing orbital altitudes, including orbits that intersect the ISS orbit. (But note that "intersecting the ISS orbit" does not necessarily mean "intersecting the ISS".)

Deliberate antisatellite destruction is something we reasonably ought to worry about, but it is not the same thing as Kessler syndrome.

Wow, I've never heard anybody suggest this. Deflation is almost never discussed; it's hard to consider it "overhyped" when nobody thinks about it at all.

There's a reason nobody cares about it these days: deflation simply isn't a problem with government-issued fiat currency. If there's not enough currency in circulation, just print more, problem solved. There are many problems that you can't solve by simply printing more money (or, more accurately, problems of which if you try to solve them by printing more money you create worse difficulties), but deflation is the one case where it works, and as a result, deflation just doesn't happen any more.

I'm afraid the rest of your comments don't address money supply, so they're not really relevant to a discussion of inflation and deflation. Remember, currency is not value in and of itself. It is a medium of exchange. If there's too much currency, the currency loses value, and it becomes useless as a medium of exchange: that's inflation (and, in its worst form, hyperinflation. If there's too little currency, however, the currency becomes overvalued, and stops flowing because people hold it rather than spend it. That only happens in a system in which currency can't be added to the system, but if you have such a system, it fails.

In fact, the government has to print more money if there is economic growth. Ideally, the money supply would grow exactly as the economy grows.*

*Unless the velocity of money changes.

I agree with your points completely, but just as a pedantic note, when the value of a currency increases, this is deflation, not inflation. Inflation is when the price of goods, measured in currency, increases. So if the price of currency goes up, that's negative: deflation.

Deflation turns out to be actually very bad, because it means people would rather hold currency than spend it, and that kills the economy. Fortunately, the deflation of bitcoin doesn't kill the economy because people simply use other things as currency.

(William Jennings Bryan's famous "Cross of Gold" speech of 1896 was in some ways about deflation: the supply of gold, which underlaid the dollar back in 1896, couldn't keep up with the growth of the economy, and the fact that the currency was increasing in value was killing farmers.)

The key sentence in the summary: ""Neither campaign appears to have gained much authentic engagement."

So, the reason so many people hate AI data centers is not because of this AI influence campaign.

I love the idea of p-11B fusion, but do keep in mind that a Boron nucleus has five times the charge of a hydrogen (including tritium) nucleus, and hence five times the ignition barrier.

D-T fusion is hard. p-11B fusion is harder.

Also radioactive everything else, since fusion produces copious amounts of neutrons, and the neutrons will activate pretty much everything the reactor vessel is made of.

The EM drive was the wish-fulfilment gadget of the moment a decade ago. Martin Tajmar's meticulous testing pretty well showed the purported thrust as being false positives, and I don't see people talking about them anymore (although there are always some impossible-to-convince holdouts, I guess), but mostly the people pushing such things have moved on to other magical gadgets.

Not sure what you're referring to here; Jimmy Carter most definitely did push for and invest in solar. Pretty much all of the solar array technology we see today is the outgrowth of the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA)'s research program of the late '70s and '80s. Most particularly the Large Silicon Solar Array (LSSA; later Low Cost Solar Array, LSA, and then changed to the Flat Plate Solar Array, FPSA) initiative pushed the movement of research from single cell development to production lines to actual large fields of arrays.