The authors of Raddit tried that, but found that actually running Reddit's software, especially on low-end hardware for a smaller community, was a pain in the arse and decided it'd be easier to build their own that fit their purposes.
If that's a genuine ethical issue then patents would be woefully inadequate at preventing it, since they would only provide a time-limited block. To actually fix things you'd need actual regulation, at which point the patent goes back to being bad.
There are records of similar practices (binding toes or piercing the soles of the feet to stop the dead from escaping) in Scandinavia, so it may have been something that came over with the Norse influence in Scotland.
Nope, we usually mean both negative and positive when talking about prime integers. Still, the question on hand is clearly restricted to the positive case, otherwise it would be trivial.
EDIT: better yet, the proper formulation with regard to all integers would be "integers having a prime factor p such that |p| < 100"
Prime elements in a ring (usually an integral domain) are elements which satisfy Euclid's lemma (so p is a prime element if p | a b implies p | a or p | b), so the prime elements in the ring of integers are 2, -2, 3, -3, and so on. But if someone refers to prime numbers, they mean 2, 3, 5, ... - it's the standard definition. In fact, if I meant to include both positive and negative elements in the context of the integers, I would go out of my way to say so to avoid confusion! I think the key is the use of the word "number" as opposed to "element" (say).
I think the terminology is a convenience - so many results pertain to 2, 3, 5, ... that it's easier to let "prime numbers" refer to them, rather than to have to qualify everything by saying "positive primes" or taking absolute values.
Assuming "floating point" refers to things fitting the IEEE754 spec at some precision, I'm pretty sure there are still only countably many of them.
After all, for any specific size of mantissa and exponent, there will be a finite number of floats of that size, and there are a countable number of options for mantissa and exponent (corresponds to N²), thus the number of floating point values is countable.
Alternatively, each of them corresponds to an arbitrary length bitstring, in addition to a pair of numbers defining the mantissa and exponent, which would put them in bijection with N³ and thus also be countable.
EDIT: to add to that, I believe that one cannot in any meaningful way encode uncomputable values (in the sense that even if one introduces distinguished bitstrings intended to "encode" a specific¹ uncomputable value one can't do anything other than treat is as a distinguished value, and especially one can't perform arithmetic on it or print its digits or similar), so you'll still be limited to a countable set of floating point numbers even with other tricks.
¹ If that term even has meaning when dealing with uncomputable numbers...
It should be noted, the LG Prada predates the original iPhone by about 6 months, with largely the same design (to the degree that LG sued Apple alleging that the design was copied). Apple managed to capture the market, however, whereas LG didn't.
There's the old joke that the axiom of choice is obviously true, the well-ordering theorem is obviously false, and Zorn's lemma is too complicated to say.
