Except font encoding has never been part of the character encoding, you might want your English text in Arial, your French in Times New Roman and the formula in Courier, but Unicode doesn't encode that. You might argue that this is not a bug, that it's simply out of scope and should be solved by a higher level encoding like <font="some japanese font">konnichiwa</font><font="some chinese font">ni hao</font> and not plaintext Unicode. That's what the Unicode consortium says and if you express it as simply a style issue, it actually sounds plausible.

On the other hand, you might argue that there's no reasonable way to map a "unihan" character to a glyph except as a band-aid since the CJK styles are distinctly different and so any comprehensive font should have three variations, it shouldn't take three fonts to make a mixed CJK document look correct just one. That this information belongs on the lowest level and should be passed along as you copy-paste CJK snippets or pass them around in whatever interface or protocol you have, otherwise everything will need a document structure and not just a string.

I don't think they should "unmerge" and duplicate all the han characters, that'd be silly. What they should do is add CJK indicators - say HANC, HANJ, HANK like for bi-directional text, only simpler with no nesting just one indicator applying until superseded by another. Like (HANJ) konnichiwa (HANC) ni hao and the former will render as a Japanese han, the latter as a Chinese. If it doesn't have any indicator, well take a guess. Am I missing something blindingly obvious or would this trivially solve the problem?

Most consumption is actually demand limited, even if you make a toll road free there's a fairly finite amount of time I'd spend driving it or how much I'd eat at a free buffet. I've never had negative feedback on my email volume, yet never had my consumption spin out of control because it's inherently self-regulating how much I'd care to consume even if it is a free and unregulated resource.

Spammers operate under the edge condition where they'd like to send an infinite number of emails (more money) and they got near zero self-cost in time (same bullshit for everyone) and money (stolen resources). 0.00001 gain / 0.0000001 cost = profit. All it would take is a tiiiiny amount of cost added and this edge case would disappear, but applying it per email would be a mess whether it's a technical, legal or commercial solution.

So instead we try to raise the cost of being a spammer as such by blacklists and verifying headers and domain keys, if you constantly have to make complex setups to spam and quickly lose your welcome the overhead for the hit-and-runs starts eating into your profits. If we're down to 50% that's not bad, "spam, real, real, spam, spam, real, spam, real, real, spam, spam" sounds a whole lot better than "spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, real(!), spam, spam"

The math is already hinted to by Spooner early:

V.I.K.I. is the same just on a global scale, this many will be harmed by revolution and this many will be harmed by our self-destructive behavior. Also later:

And:

Not sure where GP got his idea from, the movie makes it very clear that V.I.K.I. is the one following the three laws, while Sonny is the one with a second brain allowing him to act outside them.

YMMV but I don't think I've ever driven 500 miles in a day, ever. The longest would be around 350 miles and that included one substantial break, enough for a supercharge. The issue is more that a $20k ICE car primarily made for commuting can make the occasional 350 mile drive, while nothing short of the Tesla will do on the EV side without ages of charging time. Neither is really a killer feature IMHO, the killer feature would be getting the $35k model 3 out the door. Currently there's a huge no man's land between EVs like the Nissan Leaf (24 kWh) and the Tesla 70D (70 kWh).

The "stock" tires on the performance edition should do just fine on any reasonably flat paved road. Will it burn rubber? Prooooooooobably. The point is though the $10k upgrade makes your $100k car accelerate like cars that cost ten times as much. It's the class of Ferrari, Lamborghini, Koenigsegg, McLaren and high end Porsche, compared to them the Tesla is a bargain. Of course there's a catch, it can't cruise very long at really high speeds but unless you have an unrestricted Autobahn nearby that won't matter. It's not for people who need to justify it though, it's like the water cooled overclocked gaming rigs to get you those last 10 fps.

The Turing test (cough) basically comes from the following assumptions:
1) We can't really agree on what intelligence is
2) We generally agree humans are intelligent(-ish?)
3) Acting as an intelligent being requires intelligence

Sure it will be different from us, playing a human is acting out a role. The point is that this role requires intelligence, whatever that is. And that you can't just fake that by searching Wikipedia or going through every chess move but that you have to be a learning, thinking organism to convincingly pass as human. Or at least your story has to be coherent, like for example if you like classic music and dance waltz or trance music and go to raves. It's very easy to catch an AI when there's no is-a/has-a relationship but obviously you don't rave to Mozart or waltz to Scooter.

The thing is, we keep moving the goal posts. Like Watson is clearly a long step in the right direction, even though he's "only" parsing for trivia answers it's in unstructured information, not like chess where everything is perfectly laid out in a system. And on the way we might accidentally mis-identify some black people making faces as gorillas, but we've had many humans make many worse mistakes like who was and wasn't a soldier and whether or not they thought they saw a gun. I mean, in terms of AI even the stupid are "intelligent"...

I think they can do considerably better. The primary injury comes from the actual impact where a huge amount of momentum is transferred over a very short time. This is what crumble zones are for and typically last on the order of tenths of a second. Once the car has determined it will be rear-ended I imagine 0.1-0.5 seconds of rubber-burning acceleration before/during the impact before slamming the brakes could significantly reduce the maximum g-force while having a very marginal effect on the total momentum, basically it's not going to stop pushing until it's done transferring the momentum so if you were going to be pushed into traffic well that'll still happen just smoother. Once you've bounced off each other or matched speeds it can hit the brakes, it won't be a miracle cure but one more trick a computer could pull off that a human couldn't.

Or that they wouldn't remember secondary PINs. I was recently on holiday, my VISA card that I use regularly is no problem but at one hotel it wouldn't work. I also had a Mastercard as backup, but I didn't remember the PIN and somehow they didn't want to/was able to do the signature + ID thing. So I paid in cash, oh well no business for Mastercard.

Hardly. The brain has ~100 billion neurons and 100-500 trillion synapses, of which the latter is closest to a transistor. Leading CPU/GPUs have 5-9 billion transistors or less than 0.01% of that. Remember, we are approaching atom size but only in an extremely thin 2D slice. Current processors are about 100k*100k transistors big, if we could have the same density in three dimensions we'd have 100k^3 = 1000 trillion transistors in a 2.5 cm cube, comparable or even beyond the brain in density. I wouldn't try cooling it though as 100000k*100-250W power consumption means it'd consume >10 MW.

The brain only operates at ~100 Hz though, at least that's the rate synapses pass signals from neuron to neuron but it's not entirely clearly if that's equivalent to a CPU cycle or a network connection. Probably more like the latter as it seems each neuron has a form of local storage and programming of what to do. Like if you're looking at a picture and trying to determine if it's a cat people can reliably do that in half a second or 50 cycles which indicates quite a lot more processing per cycle and the neuron firing is more of a sub-result of a distributed process. So there's a lot more brain, though it runs much slower.

The thing is, there's really three forms of free/libre/open source and what Linus wanted and what RMS wanted happened to overlap, but RMS is preaching something far beyond the actual requirements of the GPLv2.

1. People will contribute back on their own (non-copyleft)
2. I want your code for my project, no keepsies (Linus)
3. Users should be able to modify everything (RMS)

Linus chose the GPLv2 because he as a developer wants to incorporate additions or modifications others have made into his own project, he doesn't care if end user devices like TiVo lock it down to signed binaries. This seems to be a common sentiment among kernel developers which is why they have made no move towards migrating to GPLv3. That of course puts RMS on full tilt as it's completely contrary to his vision, but he's not getting a lot of support.

The kernel isn't budging, Google seems to prefer the Apache license, LLVM is almost ready to replace GCC and none of the major toolkits have gone GPLv3 only, it's only the GNU projects under FSF control and they're becoming less and less essential for the whole system. Also increasingly more and more of the interesting code moves to services in the cloud, an Android phone is just a front-end to Google. And those are nearly all closed source, the AGPL is a rare beast.

Basically an loading tool with a bug I knew from testing, you could set it correctly once in production but if you set it twice every user was f*cked up and could only be fixed from the web interface by about 5 clicks per user, no programmatic solution. And of course we had an error in the production setup, I altered that part - which I could - but forgot to take out the "you can run this only once" settings. Hundreds of users borked and the vendor support would take forever or claim there's no other way, what do?

This was a consulting company, trying to bill this would look bad on both our vendor and ourselves and it pretty much broke everything so we gave a benched consultant the assignment from hell. Click here, here, browse, pick, save in this somewhat less than instant web interface. Now do that all day, every day for all users until you're done. Personally I'd be ready to jump off the roof after an hour, but apparently she stuck to it for three days and finished. I don't think we won any popularity points with her though.

Since this was a server unless he was at the console copying it off to a USB stick he'd probably hook the server back up to the network so he could copy it to his client.

He's got so many problems in that video that it's probably staged for click bait, so it can be linked to by EV opponents. Like the cable, that's staged. Every charger map has a filter and you only need to set it right once. I don't know anyone else who hasn't been able to pay for power, usually they have all the ordinary credit/debit/cell phone payment options in addition to the EV-specific cards. With broken chargers and drive problems, well that's bad luck on top of everything else. Not to mention he's trying for something the car's not planned for at all.

First of all, it has a 74 mile range and he's planning a 350 mile drive. The last 20% is really slow, so in practice the fill-ups will be 60 miles max so he'll need at least five full recharges even assuming they're perfectly spaced and he'll run close to zero range. If you want a 5 mile margin and estimating that the chargers are 5 miles from where you'd like them to be 50 miles is more realistic. That's six 80% recharges in a day, at least half an hour each so three hours total. Any sane person would say let's not do that, just rent a Tesla/ICE or take the plane or whatever.

He's abusing the range extender to carry on, but I like the basic idea that if there's a screw-up you can solve it with a little gas instead of being stranded or stuck on a slow charger. Like big boats also have small rescue boats, you know in case of emergency. Hopefully more EVs will come with that option.

If your defense lawyer won't offer competent counsel it won't ever be a fair trial. Everybody speculates, even defense lawyers. The prosecutor, the judge, the jury members, the journalists, everyone on the peanut gallery got a personal opinion. You can pick one from the lynch mob as judge, jury and executioner and you got the court of personal opinion instead of the court of public opinion, it's still a shitty system.

That's why we have a system built on evidence. The prosecutor lays out the evidence in favor, the defense lawyer the evidence against, the judge is the referee and the jury decides if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Now certainly there's a lot of subjective evaluation on what testimony is credible, evidence is reliable, theories are plausible and so on.

It's not supposed to be gut feel speculation based on superficial appearance and behavior, maybe you get an impression he's creepy and sleazy "hood rat" but that doesn't make him more guilty.than a slick smooth talker in a suit. At least it's not supposed to, but that's what personal opinion often is - how well the person in front of us matches the mental image we have of "that kind" of person.

This. We got 7 billion people - probably closer to 10 before it peaks, and as a minimum I should have one IP address at home, at work and for my cell phone. So 3*10 billion is 30 billion, IPv4 can offer 4 billion. And that's not counting every other odd thing I might want, like remote-controlled alarm/heating/whatever at my cabin or my car, servers of various kind and maybe IoT will become good for something.

Of course they probably could have just done it much, much simpler by making a dotted quad a dotted quint:

1.2.3.4.5

For compatibility each host under 1.2.3.4.x is granted 256 ports IPv4 ports mapped from x*256 to (x+1)*256-1 to a designated "IPv4 compatibility ports" like say the last ports from 65279 to 65535. So 1.2.3.4.1 can either be fully addressed by quint-capable equipment or 1.2.3.4:256-511 that'll be mapped to 1.2.3.4.1:65279-65535. And 1.2.3.4.2 will have 1.2.3.4:512-767 mapped to 1.2.3.4.2:65279-65535 and so on. You could use the same technique to provide a virtual IPv4 interface for legacy software, it thinks it is listening to 1.2.3.4:256 but it's really listening at 1.2.3.4.1:65279 - and any application it tells to connect to 1.2.3.4:256 would work.

That would have led to a gradual 256-times expansion of the address space without any hard switch-offs. But instead they decided to solve everything and now 19 years after the IPv6 standard we're still only barely in motion.