Counterpoint.

An elephant trunk is a type of tentacle. But you need rigid lever arms for lifting weight efficiently. So, I'd suggest one of each.

It's not American football. It's Canadian gridiron football.

You're still stuck in the chauvinistic mindset of your experience. It wouldn't look like a centaur. It would look like a crab with slug-like eyestalks and antennae for sensing and one or two manipulators sprouting from center of mass like either a multi-articulated arm, or an elephant trunk. Maybe both.

No, there won't. First, because all those companies are going to go bust. Second, because all those companies going bust are going to take out the entire industry and destroy trillions (with a "T") of dollars of notional wealth. (Anyone who wants to argue with me that we're not currently Y2K levels of over-valuation in the tech markets needs to first explain how Chewy's business model is sufficiently different from Pets.com's that the former makes economic sense while the latter's famously did not.) Third, the aftermath of all this will just be a new level of acceptance for fundamentally broken and worthless code being sold to the public.

That's what I was wondering. Because there absolutely have been 4-door hatchbacks. And people hated them. That's why they stopped making them and settled on 3-door and 5-door hatchbacks.

Because, unlike a trunk, it allows access into the main cabin of the vehicle.

I think you'll find that opposes the well understood definition of a "door". It has hinges, it has a latch, it is used to reversibly occlude a space. It's a door.

How the fuck can you have a "four door hatchback"?! I assume they mean five-door hatchback? The hatchback is, in fact, a door.

It is not easy to report. They do not quickly follow up. Wage theft accounts for billions of dollars of lost income in the US every year.

Might just have to check out LibreFox now. Good to know.

At least one of those was a joke, right? You're just sending up stupid fork names, right? Right?

I started using Netscape 1.0 decades ago. I switched to Firefox after Netscape was murdered by Microsoft. The only reason I'm still using Firefox is that Google is worse now than Microsoft was back in the 90s, so that removes Chrome as a possibility. Opera doesn't have the extensions I want (I'm never surfing the web without script and ad blockers on again). Everything else is too small to get much support from website developers. So, as best I can tell, my best option is to turn of updates and never update Firefox again. I really wish someone would explain to Mozilla that the lemonade doesn't taste better after you piss in it.

Los Alamos didn't have a fusion reactor in 1949. They did have a fusion lab and were inducing fusion. But they used a particle accelerator firing ions at a target. Such a thing could never generate power and thus can't be called a reactor of any sort. It, like the NIF today, is primarily studying high energy physics for nuclear weapons research. I'm guessing the other guy lacks the technical skill to understand the difference. Nonetheless, fusion reactors are old technology. None of them produce positive power, though.

Tokamaks have been fusing elements for decades. Farnsworth fusors can produce neutrons in a device that can be constructed by an ambitious teenager.