It looks like they are providing a description of the problem and a set of inputs and outputs (effectively some unit tests). Is the problem considered "solved" by the AI if the unit tests pass or does the code need to be proven correct? Is the code even comprehensible to a human?

If the requirement is just code that passes the (who knows how limited) unit tests this is not so impressive (or useful).

So it's exactly like the "average" programmer.

Maybe the zebras that are easier for the researchers to catch and tag are also easier for lions to catch and eat?

Did they "correct" all the input data or just the data that made the models fit the observed values? Did they change the input data for the models that were initially accurate, if not why not? This looks like they expected the models to be accurate and when some of them were off they changed the parameters of the experiment (only for the models that didn't give the right result) until those models were also accurate then they stopped. This is a textbook example of how not to do an experiment.

The headline says "Robocallers Win Even if You Don't Answer". Summary says "it helps offset the costs of making the calls". So if you don't answer (and therefore the scammer doesn't get any money from you) the scammer makes a loss on the call, they don't "Win".

How many continental scale wars have wiped out a significant percentage of the population of Europe since the formation of the Rolling Stones?

Therefore we must ensure the Rolling Stones never break up.

Also, I have a tiger repelling rock I am prepared to sell if you are interested.

But does a 200 line function have more bugs than 17 12-line functions calling each other. Sometimes multiple function can make code harder to understand. You should break up functions if they are complex, not just because they are long.

This is nothing new. It's exactly what the supermarkets did to specialist stores like butchers, bakers, etc. Provide one place for the customer to get almost everything they need and specialist retailers get squeezed.

I.T. just works.

Do these intelligences have a positive correlation with IQ? I would imagine that they do. What is interesting about this "visual intelligence" is that is is not correlated with IQ. I can't think of any other ability generally associated with intelligence that doesn't have a positive correlation with IQ. But I'm happy to be corrected on that.

Because sometimes a face-to-face meeting in front of a whiteboard is the best way to do things. Virtual whiteboards, like so many virtual things, are clunky and harder to use. Video conferencing is not so bad but still more inconvenient than when you can all be in the same room.

Did they only study AF or AF and 19 other health conditions?

It is too restrictive to require the government to only implement policies in their manifesto as this would restrict the government from reacting to changing circumstances. Almost all the policy changes you mention are a reaction to the (hopefully short-term) uncertainty caused by Brexit. The policy on grammar schools was not mentioned in the last Conservative manifesto but was not ruled out by it either. It would not be practical to restrict government to only enact policies that were in their manifesto. Calling May a dictator is absurd.

I think your argument that the 52% who voted for Brexit don't agree on what form of Brexit they want ignores the fact that the Remain side were if anything more divided on their vision of what Remain would mean. Labour supporters would see the EU as a way of expanding workers rights whereas Conservative supporters would see it as a vote for expanding free trade. The opinion polls consistently ranked sovereignty and immigration as the top two reasons people voted for Brexit.

May was elected by the Conservative MPs who in turn were elected by the people. That's how our parliamentary democracy works. You might as well call the President of the US a dictator because they are elected by the Electoral College rather than by the people directly.

It's not true that May is forcing through policies without a mandate, parliament will have to vote on any new legislation. It is true that Brexit was not in the Conservative manifesto, but holding a vote on Brexit and enacting the will of the people was. There is a clear mandate here, and not for "Brexit in name only" that the Remainers want (i.e. no end to free movement, remain subject to rulings of the ECJ, etc).

Also according to the latest opinion poll the Conservatives have a 17 point lead over Labour at the moment and would most likely at least triple their majority in the HoC if there was an early election.

In summary: you lost the referendum, May is here to stay whether you have an election or not, get over it.

I'm not an expert but a google search for "incidence of corporate tax" seems to indicate that your simplistic view of corporate tax incidence is not widely held among economists.