Or maybe protected status is based on species membership, and not level of thought.

Keep in mind that infants have a lower level of thought than pigs. If it is permissible to kill and eat pigs based on their low capacity for thought, then it surely applies to infant humans as well? After all anything otherwise is "specieism" which is totally the same as racism Singer argues. (Referring to Peter Singer who makes the same dipshit argument albeit more effectively than you).

It's a funny story, I just don't know why you give it any credibility given how many highly improbable things have to be true. It's far more likely that it was a story told solely for humourous reasons, or it was a minor fib that became more humourous over time.

Nope. It's been 2-3 years, but I read every single research paper on the subject.

You're confusing blog posts with actual academic papers. Just a heads up the the effects of medicines are no where near as clearcut as people think. Cannabiniods have fairly weak evidence for efficacy.

Imagine thinking that journalists have the capacity to analyze papers. Try getting a degree or atleast taking some classes on biostatistics.

Exploiting a double meaning; nobody claims that a fetuses right to life is greater than the mothers. You are conflating someone's lifestyle choice with a right to life. Guess what? Society is based on restricting lifestyle choices, you can't just scream and yell at everyone you meet. You'll face repercussions that deter such behaviour.

"It doesn't have thoughts or feelings to protect"

And you think this is why killing is wrong? You realise that these are emergent properties of neurological behaviour? You can't even possess thoughts or feelings without some time interval, so by that criteria you should be killable so long as your brain hasn't established a pattern sufficient to be considered a thought? In other words you can be killed at any moment so long as it is fast enough.

"That's scientific"

You say to a scientist. Boy do I love when lay people try to incorrectly appeal to abductive reasoning.

FYI, also an atheist, another hilarious intellectual faux pas on your behalf.

"super terrible accidents"

Yes. Super terrible accidents that result in fewer deaths than any other power source per kilowatt/hr. (Even factoring in generous increases in cancer rates).

"Dealt with Chernobyl for years..."

You realise that all the estimated premature deaths are less than respiratory issues from air pollution. We could have a Chernobyl every year and it would be an improvement.

"I'm not trying to be pedantic"

You're just being wrong.

"That's just racist"

No. Claiming that there is a historical reason behind why black people are better athletes isn't racism. It's an attempted description, it's no different than describing environmental pressures for sickle-cell. (I personally don't know if the description is correct, but I hear it predominately from very pro-black activists, primarily trying to prove that all black reproduction was actually rape).

"Eugenics and racism"

That's not an endorsement of eugenics, and eugenics is not the same as racism.

"They're bigots and like having racist thoughts because it serves the bigotry"

What do you think racism and bigotry are? Isn't racism a subset of bigotry? How does this statement make sense? Or any of yours for that matter?

There are some gullible people in this world as well.

How on earth is someone supposed to know details about the Hitler salute and not know that 1. The US was a war with him 2. That he was only the ruler 60 years past.

Not only that but addressing someone as their head of state isn't a thing. Nobody calls Indians Modi, or British people Sunak.

Your story is either that of a cruel joke or completely fabricated.

Nobody optimises their computer build by targeting pi computation. LAPACK benchmarks are far more useful, because linear algebra is actually extensively use; nobody calculates transcendental constants beyond IEE754 precision.

Additionally that's not how hardware is designed.

Nope. Alexander Yee literally just wrote the program for shits and giggles. (Even the mathematical routines aren't generally useful).

Pi can be proven to be irrational with a pen and paper.

Hotels are way worse. It's all the same job regardless of how fancy the hotel is, but the more expensive chains like Mariott will have bizarrely elitist staff, mostly front desk and management.

"The justification"

They don't legally need a justification. The reality is that drug tests just like felony checks are very good filters for bad employees. If a company actually needs employees they won't do them, or lower the standards so low that anyone that isn't actively injecting or murdering someone would pass.