SynonymousStoat

That's generally why when you're younger people tend to put their retirement funds into riskier investments and over time as you get closer to retirement you move portions of your money into less risky things that don't have the potential volatility of the stock market so that by the time you retire you don't have to worry about the stock market dipping and blowing out your retirement funds. At least that's one way to do it; obviously this isn't investment advice and you should seek your own professional investment advice.

How about both?

There isn't any CSS used on that page, it's all using old HTML only styling and I'd wager that it hasn't really been touched much since, ya know... 1997.

Would you say the same of a parent that gets drunk at night?

It's probably just some old keyword stuffing/SEO to get the page to show up under searches for all of those keywords.

I always wonder if maybe the devs are wanting an out from finishing the project but still want the cred for working on it. So they make the announcement fully knowing Nintendo will come down on them which will then alleviate them from having to complete the project.

I could, but I don't personally care that much about Vantablack.

There is a group (person) that makes an actual super deep black paint called Black 4.0 and if memory serves correctly they actually started with a jab at Kapoor by originally making the Pinkest Pink paint and banned Kapoor from buying it. Looks like they have a lot of different paints these days and are definitely worth checking out.

As much as I dislike Kapoor, technically Vantablack isn't a pigment or regular paint by any means. From my understanding it is actually carbon nano tubes with who knows what else mixed in it and I believe it's actually very dangerous to be around without proper PPE. So in that sense, it makes sense to me that he "owns" it.

Still don't like the guy though.

I'm no scientist, but I don't really know how you can have a study of a psychoactive drug and the participants not be able to guess if they had the drug or the placebo.

Firefox has been, and still is, my primary browser since before Chrome even existed so, definitely not FUD. Also, it's generally not Firefox's fault either, but instead the developers of websites that don't work in Firefox are usually doing something that isn't standards compliant.

First to come to mind is that I can't log into the account management part of the pet boarding company I use when in Firefox. Another scenario is that a lot of movie streaming sites won't give Firefox video higher than 720p so in that case, Edge is often the only browser that can receive 1080p video. From my understanding the movie studios are the ones to blame for this.

I only have Chrome installed for the rare occasion where a site doesn't work in Firefox. I feel like we've gone a bit backwards as of lately in building websites that are browser agnostic.

Looks like the USA is still about $10 trillion higher in GDP than China.