It should be legal to slash the tires of anyone who does this.

Only partially, unfortunately. There aren't a lot of people who speak full on Scots, the majority of Scotland speaks a dialect of English with a handful of Scots vocabulary now. It's an endangered language.

The danger isn't that it's smart, the danger is that it's stupid.

Particularly one who doesn't understand significant figures. Are you certain that you're precisely 74.000 inches, without even a thousandth of an inch of rounding? If not, you don't get to use 5 sigfigs when converting.

I wouldn't trust Sony to have kernel access.

Remember the 13 billion years before you were born? More of that.

Because it's just a text prediction engine, the only training data it has about taking a goat across the river is a well-known puzzle involving a wolf, a goat, and a cabbage, so it just regurgitates the solution to that.

It's the unabridged ISO 639 list.

Apple, in an attempt to leverage social pressure to drive sales instead of actually providing a quality product, displays texts from Android devices in a deliberately unpleasant to look at shade of green, and cripples features of the group chat if even one member of it is using a non-Apple device, incentivizing groups of friends and even families to ostracize people for using a different phone.

Also, adblockers still work.

It's the first question in a battery of questions designed to force you to be aware of inconsistencies in your ethical framework. The first answer is supposed to be obvious: Yes, you throw the switch, but most people's reason for that creates a very messy precedent that the distinction between action and inaction doesn't matter, only the outcome, which later questions can exploit.

Blowing up pipelines doesn't kill anyone. I know you think property damage is worse than murder, but sane people don't think that.