That's actually a more shitty cable. The USB spec gives a maximum cable length based on when wire length will start to pick up more interference and impact data rates.
Basically this is a curly cable that can't be as long as it otherwise would, and if you try it's going to actively try to pull itself out of the device because it's a spring.

There is a weight associated with the electrons needed to convey information, but it's negligible.

Beyond that though, we're not actually so interested in moving the electrons, but in toggling the electric field. Most of the electrons in the wire stay in the wire, and any that leave are balanced by another coming in on the other end. Electrons can move between the atoms, but if your cable is actually changing the number then something has gone wrong, since laptops don't typically ionize copper.

It's a pretty straightforward calculation, since amperage is the number of electrons per second, and the cables has a well documented signaling rate.
It works out to a bit weighing about 2x10^-22 grams for a USB cable.

So why are you using random nonsense to argue your point?

Also, you're like a gen x property owner who runs a food bank. Oh, and you're Australian. The previous generations left you with a pretty sweet setup.
I'm sorry no one died and left you their retirement account.

What the fuck are you talking about? How is that even passingly relevant to what I said?

Saying that your argument style is "say random stuff and pretend it has backing" is kind of a shitheel thing to do. Just say your opinion, don't pretend it has a citation if it doesn't.

Wait, you're blaming boomers for stuff but you linked to data that says the opposite of what you implied. Your first link says the biggest demographic is 15-64, and boomers are 65-80. Your second says millennials are the bulk of the workforce.

It once happened with an entire building. And not the way that it sounds.

Turns out if you make a building a giant parabolic reflector, it'll reflect sunlight and gently melt a few cars.

The issue they were dealing with was that the material would be hazardous longer than almost any known language has been spoken. We could bury the waste, civilization collapses, and then rebuilds and it would still be hazardous.

So how do you convey the danger in a way that will stick?
The messages as written are more the point to convey, rather than literal words.
The pyramids had big warnings of bad things if you break in, but combined with the decoration we were convinced something special was there.
So how do we structurally convey "this is not a place of honor”?
They had notions like covering the site with trash and so on. You don't bury a king with discarded animal bones, and you don't pile trash on something you want to honor.

I think they ultimately decided that the best path was to largely leave it unmarked, but case it in enough hardened concrete that anyone in the future would realize we weren't totally unsophisticated, and at that layer start putting more directed messages referencing chemical elements.

Some of their diagrams were pretty good though.

If you stand on a ledge, it could fall. If you fall, you die. Don't stand on the ledge.
Digging here is like standing on a ledge.

I was also really taken with the notion of genetically engineering cats to glow near radiation, and spreading the belief that glowing cats are dangerous.

Imagine you have some friends. You like them. No one else knows them. You've got an uncle you love because you've known him since childhood and he's sweet but he laughs really loud and you know most people don't appreciate him. You got any number of other people who you want to be at your wedding but you know that you can't put them next to ___ because it'll just be this whole thing.

So what do you do? You put them where they fit!

It's not about inviting people you don't like, or marginalizing people you do. It's about putting people who don't mind eating dinner together near each other.
It's not like the table is labeled, it's just that you can tell which one caught the "didn't fits". Sometimes it's as simple as "every table has someone, their partner, and their cousin/sibling/relative, and one table has the three single cousins who have 3 siblings, and a few random friends".

So I actually think that the government officials did about as well as they could here.
They let the person make their statement, and then someone not in the government interrupted to say they had to "undo the curse". Official said that wasn't in the agenda, and then the mayor said they would just pause for 30 seconds to reflect before moving on to keep things from getting off the rails.

Galloway spent the moment of silence with her head up and her arms crossed. An hour later, she spoke up. “Opening with an invocation means allowing viewpoints that may not reflect our own and responding to someone’s invocation is a slippery slope to putting a financial liability on the taxpayers and allowing others to object or respond. This is exactly why I had concerns about having an invocation when we first talked about it.”

Oh, you're totally correct. Just, as the other commenter immediately demonstrated: people love to latch on to any discrepancy or possible inconsistency.

You're not wrong. It's further than that though, because there are accidental head-hammerings (if we want to get all OSHA I suppose we'd say there are head hammerings from systemic negligence, but thats the same on an individual level), but you just don't have an accidental rape.

The point continues to be missed: why is it unsafe?

No one disputes that that situation is unsafe. People are saying that it's unsafe because of rapists. Pointing out that you shouldn't do unsafe things is asinine when the point being made is that people shouldn't act in a fashion that makes them a danger to others.

Ignoring that the hazard is due to the choices of live humans with agency and entirely placing the agency on the victim is the crux of the problem.

Flip it around: you shouldn't be inebriated in a situation where there are hundreds of people you can hurt.

The victim has no control over where the hazard goes. The rapist chooses where it's dangerous for the victim to be. Big party? Dangerous if there's a rapist there. Intimate gathering of friends? Dangerous if one of them is a rapist.

Rapists are not lightning. They don't randomly strike in hazardous situations beyond anyone's control where the best advice is "don't stand under a big tree or you might get raped by lightning".
They're humans committing a crime against another person.