AnyOldName3

In real life, all quantum entanglement means is that you can entangle two particles, move them away from each other, and still know that when you measure one, the other will have the opposite value. It's akin to putting a red ball in one box and a blue ball in another, then muddling them up and posting them to two addresses. When opening one box, you instantly know that because you saw a red ball, the other recipient has a blue one or vice versa, but that's it. The extra quantum bit is just that the particles still do quantum things as if they're a maybe-red-maybe-blue superposition until they're measured. That's like having a sniffer dog at the post office that flags half of all things with red paint and a quarter of all things with blue paint as needing to be diverted to the police magically redirect three eighths of each colour instead of different amounts of the two colours. The balls didn't decide which was red and which was blue until the boxes were opened, but the choice always matches.

The US government asked the big ISPs how much it would take to wire everyone up to high-speed Internet, then passed a bill to give them a ludicrous lump sum to do so (IIRC it was hundreds of billions). The money was split between dividends, buying up other companies, and suing the federal government for attempting to ask for the thing they'd paid for, and in the end, the government gave up. That left loads of people with no high-speed Internet, and the ISPs able to afford to buy out anyone who attempted to provide a better or cheaper service. Years down the line, once someone with silly amounts of money for a pet project and a fleet of rockets appeared, there was an opportunity for them to provide a product to underserved customers who could subsidise the genuinely impossible-to-run-a-cable-to customers.

If the US had nearly-ubiquitous high-speed terrestrial Internet, there wouldn't have been enough demand for high-speed satellite Internet to justify making Starlink. I think this is what the other commenter was alluding to.

That was basically because you could die from pretending to do it. The challenge was to eat a laundry pod. That's really obviously not safe, but biting a laundry pod and spitting it out after pretending to swallow and die for the camera seemed like a reasonable way to freak people out while skipping the dangerous part to a handful of teenagers. The biting step was the real dangerous one, though, as concentrated laundry detergent can corrode tongues and throats and windpipes really quickly, and you'd lose the capacity to decide what to swallow, what to inhale, and what to hold in your mouth and spit out within seconds. This kills the teenager. The news generally reported this as Teenager dies attempting Tide Pod Challenge instead of Teenager dies attempting to fake Tide Pod Challenge, which didn't tell teenagers it wasn't safe to pretend to do, but did make pretending to do it seem like a better prank, so overall only made it more tempting.

It also doesn't help that once you've paid the large fee for the Pro version, it doesn't actually guarantee any support if you encounter a bug. You get access to a different issue tracker, and might get a Unity employee to confirm that the bug exists after a couple of months (and maybe close it as a duplicate, then reopen it as not a duplicate when the fix for the other bug doesn't help, then reclose it as a duplicate when it turns out the fix for the other bug also doesn't fix the other bug, and at the end of a multi-month process, there still being a bug with no indication an engineer's looked at it).

Anyway, I'm glad to no longer be working for a company that uses Unity.

Either:

• They're in denial that this happens (arguably, it didn't happen, as eventually Tesco lost, and they wouldn't know about it in the three years Tesco was winning because The Telegraph/Mail etc. wouldn't report on that).
• They think worse things would always happen under other systems (e.g. everyone would be a slave of the state and go to gulag if they complained about anything).
• They don't see it as an inherent problem with capitalism (e.g. simply make doing this illegal, and refuse to let business lobby to reverse the decision, and everything's fine).
• They think this is a good thing (e.g. the fired workers will be incentivised to work harder, then earn a payrise, and use the extra 10p an hour to start a competing multibillion pound supermarket chain).

It's easy to get pressured into thinking it's your responsibility. There's also the risk that an unhappy company will make a non-copyleft clone of your project, pump resources into it until it's what everyone uses by default, and then add proprietary extensions so no one uses the open-source version anymore, which, if you believe in the ideals of Free Software, is a bad thing.

There was an EU-wide one that gota lot of its funding redirected to AI stuff recently that you might be thinking of.

A rusty crowbar is also red because of the iron atoms that compose it, but it's not mansplaining to take issue with someone telling people they're eating crowbars.

That's more likely to be the tool assuming it's running on a case-insensitive filesystem than it is Windows breaking anything. If you mount networked storage running on a case-sensitive machine, that's something that's worked fine in Windows for a very long time.

In the UK, you're not meant to get within 6ft of a bike when you're overtaking it (although it's pretty common for drivers to get muddled and think that rule's talking about inches). That means it's not safe to overtake if there are oncoming vehicles in the opposite lane or solid white lines in the middle of the road. Another bike a metre or so from the first one doesn't change that if you've got to cross into the opposite lane anyway, and it's better if they're two abrest as you don't need to be in the opposite lane for as long.

There are plenty of idiot cyclists who endanger themselves, but there are also plenty of drivers who accuse people of being idiot cyclists when they're following The Highway Code to the letter.

Personally, I can ignore the effects of artificial sweeteners on insulin levels as they, like everything else, have no effect, and my insulin levels are only affected by when I inject it. I'm type 1 diabetic. When people make incorrect claims based on effects that aren't reproducible or weren't statistically significant in the first place about the safety of sweeteners, it causes direct problems for me. I've had bartenders mess up my blood sugar levels by lying about serving diet drinks because they think they're dangerous. Plus, if the people who push for artificial sweeteners to be banned had their way, there are plenty of things I couldn't ever eat or drink again.

Aspartame is very mildly carcinogenic. An equivalent amount of sugar is much more carcinogenic, and is harmful in other ways, too. If you have to have a can of cola, diet is the healthier choice.