Bad analogy. Using drones to seed clouds will have a very small impact on the jobs of pilots - there aren't many pilots who do this kind of work. And it won't have any impact on airline pilots, who are the people who fly airliners, not the small planes that do cloud seeding. Their concern, as the article says, is with drones flying in the same airspace as airliners and with the debris (like "space junk" but at a lower altitude) that the cloud seeding flares generate.

It's been more than a meme.

As the article points out, it's been a question in philosophy since antiquity. At least 2500 years of discussion, probably more. We have no way to know how different people process what they see without peeking inside the brain and comparing. This is newsworthy as it's the closest we've come to verifying it.

There are still open questions about perception and interpretation in addition to just neural pathways, particularly around those with different sensitivities, but that's at least a start.

Color blindness missing one, two, or three sensitivities, tetrachromats or having a fourth sensitivity, shifted sensitivities that peak at slightly different places for different people, all of them lead to ways the colors could be perceived and interpreted differently by different people. It's a good start at research, but there's a lot more that can be answered.

The world we've built is built for our shape -- bipedal, upright. While specialist shapes can be useful in limited circumstances, a bipedal human-shaped robot would be adaptable to the world that already exists.

Actually, many plants contain very little protein. Sago, for example, in dry form, contains less than 1% protein. The lack of protein, and specifically, the lack of protein containing certain crucial amino acids, is why it is tricky for vegans for obtain an adequate diet. They have to make sure to consume enough of the minority of plant foods that do contain a lot of protein, such as soy beans.

You're assuming that women who put on water rather than the rose scent are not smelling anything. That is not the case. There are all sorts of odors around us. It is however true that more would be learned by having women put on different scents.

There is absolutely no reason why a word processor, spreadsheet, database, image editor, or other such program needs to send data off-site. Why on earth do people buy a product that insists on doing this when there are perfectly adequate alternatives?

Of course not. For one thing, even if some aspects of language are innate, others surely are not. Aspects of intonation could be innate without any of syntax, with which Chomsky is primarily concerned, being innate.

It doesn't, actually. The official description from the IEC says:

Emphasis mine. The standard test for IPX7 is submersion in still water to a depth of 1 meter for 30 minutes. IPX8 is "better than that". Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. all define how much better on their own. CNBC has an excellent video explainer on what exactly all this means.

These companies are designing to protect against people dropping their phone in the toilet, or maybe a kiddie pool. And yeah, as called out in the CNBC video, the advertising is very deceptive and unfair.

Precisely. By the time the methane is ready for use as fuel, the other components of initial product have been removed.

Okay, fair point. But the ratio of C12 to C13 doesn't make one source ickier than another. There's no odor or bacteria or anything like that left.

Its just CH4. Unless it has somehow been contaminated, there is no trace of its origin. Without knowing its history, there's no way to tell whether it came from human waste, animal waste, the breakup of organic matter at high temperature and pressure in sedimentary basins, respiration by anaerobic bacteria, or synthetic hydrogenation of carbon monoxide.

It looks like he is Indian, from Jammu & Kashmir. The "back to France" bit is apparently because he had already moved to France and returned to the US for his trial.

Exactly. They are falsely represented as new, but they are real Seagate drives, so not counterfeit.

Why is a passenger tire different?

Neither the FBI's assessment nor the CDC's assessment agree with your recommendations. They have a lot of heavily-researched recommendations filled with rigorous citations and backed by tragic data.

Research over the past 30 years is clear on how to do it: First and foremost, socioeconomic disparity needs to be addressed. Second, availability of mental health care to minors, especially by decoupling it from parental employment, or said differently, universal mental health care for minors at the very least. Third, external groups auditing schools for signs of bullying, social classes or have/have-nots, especially by administrators and teachers; data shows schools and districts cannot self-assess because the ones doing the assessments are part of the bias, and typically blind to their actions.

The data shows, and the FBI summary is clear in describing, that regulations on firearms themselves are statistically irrelevant. In fact, the FBI summary explicitly calls out that is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation and false claims, the demonstrably wrong belief that easy access to weapons is the most significant risk factor. The data shows it has virtually no effect whatsoever. Anyone wanting to commit violence at school can do so.

The four-prong assessment model, looking at the personality of the student, the family dynamics, the school dynamics, and interplay/leakage between any of those with society at large, tends to give the best view of risks. Schools and local officials especially tend to downplay their role, dismissing teacher favoritism to cliques as "school spirit", "supporting the team", and similar, and dismissing their prejudice because they are blind to it, believing it justified.

Unfortunately the research-backed guidance isn't popular with lawmakers. The plans cost money. Addressing the disparity is labeled terms like "woke" and "communist". Universal healthcare labeled "socialized medicine" and given labels like "death panels" as though insurance companies don't do the same today. The republican party is against it claiming individual liberties, the democratic party is against it due to high costs.