Now, yes, there are predictions that you could get a supermassive black hole launched into space, especially during a galaxy merger if the velocity of the smaller black hole exceeds the escape velocity of the combined galaxy.

But I'd be wary of assuming that it's a launched black hole, unless we can find the merger it comes from. There may be ways for such a black hole to form that cause the stars to be launched away rather than the black hole being flung, and if a galaxy isn't rotating fast enough to be stable, one could imagine that a sufficiently small galaxy was simply consumed by its central black hole. Both of these would seem to produce exactly the same outcome, if all we have is the black hole itself and a velocity.

I'm not going to say either of these is likely in this case, or that astronomers haven't examine them (they almost certainly have), but rather that we should be cautious until we've a clearer idea of what the astronomers have actually been able to determine or rule out.

You're absolutely right, and it sucks that I fell for that trap.

In regard to long-haul trucking, I think there's some merit to the idea of having swappable batteries, since presumably the capacities are larger than in consumer vehicles. But since truckers are already spending stretches of time at rest stops, the benefit is incremental, as you noted.

Along those lines, there might be applications for taxi fleets--short range personal transit where the vehicles are all uniformly the same and operated out of a central hub. But again, if the capacity is big enough that a car could just be charged every night, why build these complicated stations?

There are just so many problems with the component swapping model.

1. Age of components. As you pointed out, old components could be swapped for new, or vice versa. The way this would be addressed is to reconceptualize the battery hardware as being a consumable like gas, so that it does not comprise a significant portion of a car's value. But that's a difficult sell: it's like saying an ICE gas tank is consumable when it's the gasoline it holds that's consumed.

2. Compatibility of swapped components. How are the car manufacturers going to cooperate to standardize the battery hardware and connections for all the different kinds of cars that are produced? What about differences in capacity for each model? You wouldn't swap a light duty vehicle's battery into a truck, or vice versa. You'd either have to design the system to be modular (swap as many cells as is needed), or you'd have to keep a library of components for different classes of vehicle. All of that would increase system complexity.

3. Availability. The size and complexity of such swapping stations would preclude having them widely distributed. Where would they store all the batteries to facilitate servicing enough cars per hour to make it sufficiently convenient for drivers? And if they are not widely available, they become bottlenecks for adoption and use.

4. Liability. What happens if there is an error and the car is damaged or the driver is injured? Who bears the liability?

These are just a few of the problems I can see, and for what benefit? So that the downtime is cut by...how much? This idea has always smelled like a scam--a bad faith argument pushed by EV proponents to try to convince people to buy or invest in EVs now, because future technology will solve the range/refuel issue. And I say this as a strong proponent of EVs. The idea itself just never seemed to make sense. You'd need a level of coordination and cooperation among manufacturers, consumers, and regulators that simply does not exist and will never exist except in countries where choice and competition are restricted.

I'm amused by those who imagine that the laws of physics can be defied merely by looking the other way. It makes me ponder how unbelievably moronic humanity is, how pathetic, and how deserving of what it is come.

No, the executive tells the civil service what it needs to do, but the civil service is wholly independent.

Indeed. Replacing half a century of collective experience with a new language in an entirely different and far less tested environment to write low level code, where all the memory safety features have to be disabled at all the same failure points where C and assembly have been used... for reasons.

So, in other words, it really isn't any better at bare metal development than C/C++. If you have to direct memory and hardware manipulation in unsafe blocks, then really, it's just the same thing as doing it in C.

You do not appear to understand what a republic or a democracy is, so I'll ignore the last sentence.

"Independent" does not mean unaccountable to the people. The President is independent of Congress, and vice versa, but both are accountable to the people. Well, the current president doesn't seem to think so, but legally he is.

The civil service is not a part of the executive but is a co-equal branch.

You are correct. In principle, presidents have no authority whatsoever to dictate how an agency runs. The executive branch should have zero authority over the civil service, which is intended to constitute a fourth co-equal branch of government.

In the US, in principle, the status of the civil service as co-equal to, and independent of, the executive should be added to the Constitution and enshrined in law for good measure. Not that that would help much with the current SCOTUS, but a Constitutional change might possibly persuade the current government that absolute authoritatian control is not as popular as Trump thinks.

That is the idea that, in Britain, entities like the NHS and the BBC have operated under. Charters specify the responsibilties and duties, and guarantee the funding needed to provide these, but the organisation is (supposed) to carry these out wholly independently of the government of the day.

It actually worked quite well for some time, but has been under increasing pressure and subject to increasing government sabotage over the past 20-25 years.

It's also the idea behind science/engineering research funding bodies the world over. These should direct funding for grant proposals not on political whim or popularity but on the basis of what is actually needed. Again, though, it does get sabotaged a fair bit.

Exactly how you'd mitigate this is unclear, many governments have - after all - the leading talent in manipulation, corruption, and kickbacks. But presumably, strategies can be devised to weaken political influence.

230 prevents sites from being prosecuted. So, right now, they do b all moderation of any kind (except to eliminate speech for the other side).

Remove 230 and sites become liable for most of the abuses. Those sites don't have anything like the pockets of those abusing them. The sites have two options - risk a lot of lawsuits (as they're softer targets) or become "private" (which avoids any liability as nobody who would be bothered would be bothered spending money on them). Both of these deal with the issue - the first by getting rid of the abusers, the second by getting rid of the easily-swayed.

USENET predates 230.
Slashdot predates 230.
Hell, back then we also had Kuro5hin and Technocrat.

Post-230, we have X and Facebook trying to out-extreme each other, rampant fraud, corruption on an unimaginable scale, etc etc.

What has 230 ever done for us? (And I'm pretty sure we already had roads and aqueducts...)

I'd disagree.

Multiple examples of fraudulent coercion in elections, multiple examples of American plutocrats attempting to trigger armed insurrections in European nations, multiple "free speech" spaces that are "free speech" only if you're on the side that they support, and multiple suicides from cyberharassment, doxing, and swatting, along with a few murder-by-swatting events.

But very very very little evidence of any actual benefits. With a SNR that would look great on a punk album but is terrible for actually trying to get anything done, there is absolutely no meaningful evidence anyone has actually benefitted. Hell, take Slashdot. Has SNR gone up or down since this law? Slashdot is a lot older than 230 and I can tell you for a fact that SNR has dropped. That is NOT a benefit.

It's incredibly frustrating to see mainstream media so consistently phrase evolutionary phenomena in ways that suggest that organisms somehow have conscious control of their genetics. At best, it is a simple misunderstanding, but my suspicion is that it is a longstanding, intentional effort to undermine natural selection and foundational principles of evolutionary biology. This is why, even after its widespread verification and acceptance by the scientific community, the general public still remains ignorant or misinformed of even the most basic tenets of the theory.

A more honest title might be along the lines of "Genetic analysis reveals polar bears that are better able to tolerate a warming climate are being selected over those that cannot, and this adaptation is occurring faster than previously anticipated."