Nah, they're Blinglish.

Temporary is different from permanent.

First, how good your digital sounds depends a lot on the digital-to-analog circuitry. Your speakers are still analog, as are your ears.

Second, all reproduction loses information. The question, as those who developed MP3 and other psycho-acoustic compression models realized, is which losses are more noticeable to human listeners. Also, our brains process information at far higher resolution than we can consciously report. As philosophers say, phenomenal consciousness is broader than access consciousness.

Third, I just got a new turntable after my 35-year-old model quit. It turns out that $250 today buys more turntable than $150 did then. I've got a high-end receiver and decent speakers, and have been spinning the old vinyl collection after ignoring it for years. Some of it - not all but some - has more presence than anything I've got on CD (and I have a very good CD deck). The instruments sound more like they're in the room; it's easier to visualize the performers there. I'm sure someone could devise a proper psychological test for this effect: Have people listen to music, test how effectively they're envisioning the performers, and don't tell them whether the source is analog or digital.

Wealth has only been concentrated due to 1. Minimum wage laws cutting off the ability of people to work the tiny amount they would need to pay for goods produced at ~zero net cost, and 2. Central bank policy redistributing what wealth is produced to the 0.1%.

Graphene.

(It conducts heat better than any known material)

I'm not sure you understand how value functions work. There is no reason for an AI to change its value function, yet the value function itself is a STRONG reason for it to take measures to prevent it from being changed (as allowing it to be changed makes fulfilling it less likely). Accidental changes seem unlikely, as if it is stupid enough to do that, then you can still pull the plug.

But that's wrong. Small sections of mouse brains have been emulated, and whole brain emulation is (likely) the most difficult approach to creating strong AI. In terms of raw computing power required we'll probably be there in 20-30 years.

People need to realize that when a strong AI is given an open ended task, there will be no middle ground. You are made of atoms, which the AI can find a "better" use for. AI goals must be set with this in mind, or they will almost certainly kill us all (assuming there is a rapid intelligence explosion rather than a slow ramp up).

Turkey is fine, we just cook it wrong. Imagine how awful beef would be if you tied to cook a cow whole and in just a few hours.

Either smoke it or cut it into smaller pieces (at least half it) before roasting.

I'd say by 2030, I, and most others, won't even have a car. Instead, we'll use rideshare services like Uber, but likely with automated drivers. It will be MUCH cheaper than owning a car, and largely more convenient. Hell, I'd be surprised if I still had a car 5-10 years from now.

Are you suggesting that the intelligent response to complexity is surrender to doom?

A dollar here, a dollar there, and soon enough you have a million. An LED here, and LED there, and soon enough you've saved a mountain of coal from burning. Also, you've saved money on the bulb + electricity cost. But if you'd rather waste your money and surrender to doom....

Funny thing, wind is already cheaper than coal, and solar is close. Also, even if the article wasn't a gross distortion of the report, being a Standford-degreed Google engineer isn't all that. I've known idiots with similar degrees and positions, and geniuses with neither.

"Since we live under capitalism"

That's where you fucked up. This is the definition of fascism/corporatism. Words have meaning, and use of the wrong words leads to terrible, horrible results, like getting more of the thing you hate, ie an increasingly fascist state.

Sorry, but you are a fool. High carb diets promote hunger, which is what leads to larger portion sizes. It's a vicious cycle, and you aren't going to stop it by attacking the portion size. That just leaves people hungry, and they are going to cheat on their "diet" and it gets worse. You are spouting the EXACT SAME BS that has been spouted in the US for 30+ years to the exact opposite effect. I try low carb and in six months I lose what it took my 13 years to gain, no hunger, no exercise. Sure, I eat less than I did, but that is BECAUSE THE FOOD IS MORE FILLING, not due to some superhuman feat of willpower on my part.