California brings water from a lot farther than that -- the Aqueduct runs about 500 miles to service Los Angeles. (And has turned the formerly-lush Owens Valley into a desert.)

Destroying the first dam was environmentally catastrophic, and produced a massive fish kill. Ooops.

https://californiaglobe.com/ar...

I live in one of the fastest growing suburban areas of the country, and it has been forever since I have seen either a home or a business conventionally stick-built from the ground up. Everything is prefab and has been for at least 20 years.

When all the other evidence is from fossils, it's hard to imagine how the mess we've made in the last century or three will fossilize. But whoever digs it up will probably boggle.

All that, but I suspect the real issue is that freight is a lot more profitable in that hold than is baggage, so they're trying to reduce the amount of baggage by charging it out of existence.

No one gets 45 years for smuggling drugs, or for that matter, for smuggling live bodies. If you look at the list of charges, they're a damned long stretch, making it sound like he was a massive smuggling op, not someone who had the wrong tank in the back of his truck.

If you move your household from Mexico to Arizona and bring along your fridge, have you committed a crime?

Thanks for the very comprehensive reply! I didn't realise it was so far along. I am in Australia and I don't think it's available with that level of functionality yet here. I am still pretty wary of computer vision only solutions but it sounds like they are getting something that works better than I would have guessed.

Is the feature called FSD but it's basically just lane assist stuff? Or is there more to what they're calling FSD? I was under the impression there isn't a comprehensive set of "self driving" features available just yet even for those that bought FSD as a package.

It could be useful in a trial setting as a screening tool for study population enrichment. A big problem with clinical trials investigating treatments for dementia (and in particular, Alzheimer's) is that either (1) the intent-to-treat population contains too many participants who don't have the disease; or (2) the patients who have the disease are at a stage of disease progression that reduces intervention efficacy.

We've conducted trials in the apolipoprotein-e4 population, for example, and more recently, have used PET imaging results, but a blood-based biomarker with even moderate predictive power would be a tremendous help, because the ability to detect these patients at an early stage of their disease could very well translate to clinical evidence of a treatment's ability to stop symptomatic disease.

But I agree that without extremely high sensitivity and specificity (like, > 99% and > 95%), and without treatment options, such a biomarker would not be useful diagnostic information for the general population. I have hope that we are getting closer to nailing down Alzheimer's pathology.

Independent parallel programming might have caught the error. Just have two individuals create independent implementations of the same calculations. Neither can see the other's work. A third party views the outputs and checks that they match. If not, they have to find the error. I don't think that would cost 10x the amount.

There's no such thing as 100% accuracy. Errors always happen. It's just a matter of how much error one is willing to accept, and if the stakes are high enough, you do a cost-benefit analysis to see whether the effort to bring the risk down outweighs the cost.

In this case, it seems like there was a single point of failure, which as we all know, is not good practice.

Question: could this update also have affected other programs running on Windows? Saw complaint elsewhere about some irreplaceable legacy software that just now stopped working, following a Windows update (presumably Win10) -- and that seems a bit too coincidental.

So like a battery, but the energy is wasted on garbage and heat

Classic Shell still works in 10 and 11.

So does WinAero Tweaker (and is the easy way to get your 11 context menu back; it's the first thing you see when you run it).

The biggest problem with emulating old DOS programs is that there were no device drivers to speak of, so everything controlled hardware directly. New machines don't like that. Everyone ignored the serial, parallel, and video drivers in ROM because they were garbage, and proprietary hardware had to be controlled directly by the application, often through parallel ports or custom ISA cards. The main thing people let the OS do was handle mass storage, and even that required custom TSR drivers for stuff like external drives. New machines are also just too damn fast for some of the timing loops that were hard-coded. Some of these issues can be handled in emulation, but a lot of them can't.

The actual Commodore 1541 disk drive was itself a 6502 based computer about as powerful as the C64 itself, and many of the copy protection schemes of the day involved reprogramming it.

True. But it used to be more or less assumed that if you did the stupid, you paid a penalty and learned better. (Bet you never touched another hot stove. And learned a valuable lesson about impulse control.) Now we're protected from the penalty, so there's no downside to stupid, so there's a perception that we must be protected from stupid...