IIUC, that was a (large scale) experiment. Maybe it will work, but maintenance may be too expensive.

Sorry, but the moon has LOTS of real value. The far side, e.g., is an ideal place to set up a large radio-telescope. It's got lots of useful materials for building things for local use. It's missing a few things that we need, like air and water, so that problem needs to be handled. But it's got a low enough gravity that a "lunar launcher" is actually practical...at least probably.

Orbital velocity is "half-way to anywhere", but there isn't much there to build stuff out of.

All that said, I'm not really convinced that our technology is yet up to the job. There's considerably too much handwaving around the details, and it's not going to be cheap. This only makes sense as a part of a long-term project...and we've got a bad track record on those. (OTOH, I didn't watch the megalithic structures being built. Perhaps they were also built in surges.)

IIUC, there isn't enough water on the moon to pay for using it as rocket fuel. There are doubts that there's enough to sustain a lunar colony. Better have a backup plan for extracting it from rocks. (This can be done, with many kinds of rock, but it's not cheap.)

Of course, we don't really know what the subsurface is like. There could be lots of water. But that's not the way to bet. A better source is probably the asteroids beyond the frost line. That requires technology than we don't have yet, but probably not anything that fancy. The problem is surviving until the basics get set up. (This, of course, assumes we don't waste the minimal resources that are currently "almost available".)

I think what people are finding dubious is the "plausible intended use".

Could be a touch screen.
Actually, any controller would work. With sufficient computation it could use a voice controller.

I know you think that makes sense, but I can't parse it into something sensible. It sounds like you're saying "Russia was a conquering empire while it was being conquered by outsiders."
Perhaps you mean something like "The conquerors of Russia were a conquering empire and they established permanent dominance over Russia." Which I think is true, but that doesn't have Russia being a conquering empire throughout history. A source says some of the Tsars were descendants of Viking Chieftans from the Ukraine. (It also says "they were invited to rule", but I suspect "invite" is a very "diplomatic truth".) Being taken over by someone doesn't make you a conquering empire, even if they bring an army along.

I'm sure you're right, but when? The vikings conquered it at one point. The Mongols demanded tribute from parts, and conquered other parts. At one point Lithuania held at least the Ukraine. Most modern states don't really have a long history. I think there was a period where Poland was the aggressive empire. Saying "throughout history" is just wrong.

It existed in 1950. Many people living in it wished it didn't exist, but it did.

It has been at very high cost to Ukraine. But perhaps they don't want to be eaten piece by piece by Russia.

I think you're wrong about the "throughout history". The Mongols and the Huns were not Russians. IIRC, Russia has been invaded more often than it has been the invader. If you'd said "since 1900", or "since 1850" you might have a point (though I'd need to check).

I'll agree that is sure didn't make things better, but those are temporary changes, and, e.g., EVs still have the problem of how to charge them if you don't have a garage...which LOTS of people don't. That really needs to be solved.

It's hard to find any good thing to say about Trump, but this was already a problem, and he didn't make it much worse. Blame him for other things. You won't need to look very hard.

Actually, I think CPT invarience means there is a difference. But this only applies to weak-force interactions.

When your starship will run on one anti-matter atom.

Actually, anti-matter factories are possible, but probably not in a strong gravity field surrounded by positive matter. (Also they aren't cheap to power. It takes a lot of power to create mass, and you need to create twice as much as the amount of anti-matter you end up with, even if you get 100% efficiency.)

That's unfair. He didn't improve things (except by closing the strait or Hormuz), but he didn't make things that much worse. We were already increasing the rate of CO2 emission every year.

I suspect a lot of people store that information unencrypted on their computer, so the AI could find it on its own initiative. There may be other ways, but I guess the stupidest one first.