We will see this very same post, in a couple of years, only with Quantum replaced by AI. Just wait.

If only we had a word for Millions of Millions of bytes...

No problem. The Pierson's Puppeteers already had that problem lots of years ago, and they solved it by simply moving their planet a bit further from their sun. We just concentrate on developing the needed tech. Properly fed Indonesians sure could help into that.

That is precisely my point, that it doesn't matter how is marketed, the SEC should consider what it "is". I could start tomorrow selling certificates of ownership for planets that are beyond the light horizon, that is in the unreachable part of the universe. I could market it like an investment. People could, just as with bitcoin, consider it an investment. But the SEC should have nothing to do with it, as it's obviously a curiosity, or a collectible. The fact that a secondary market of rare certificates would appear, should have nothing to do with it.

A very few times, even if it walks like a duck, it's not a duck. But the fact that it looks so much like a duck will make the explanation difficult. I think Coinbase has a point. When you buy a bitcoin, your only hope is to be able to sell it again, in the future, to a bigger idiot. That's the same hope usually with a stock, but the crucial difference is the "usually". Sometimes you buy stock to obtain control of a company, because there are rights acquired too, like the right to vote.

But they have worked so diligently in dressing the bitcoin with the trappings of a security, like having a "quote" for example, and a "volume", that it's now difficult to convince anybody that it's not a real security, that what you are buying is just a very long number, and who knows why you are doing it, perhaps you like long numbers. What there is certainly not, is any other kind of guarantee involved.Tomorrow they could close all bitcoin exchanges and you could say nothing about it. So it's not a security at all, they could call it an "insecurity", but that's not a catchy name, I suppose.

That same sentence called my attention too. I couldn't see the relationship between a fast processor, more than that, a leading-edge processor is implied, and a good education.

So what you mean is that the side that aligns with the USA gets a much better future. I get it. So USA the goodies. I find your position a bit manichean, but cannot really argue with it, I mean, Japan, West Germany as opposed to East Germany... yup, you are mostly right.

I'm confused, didn't South Korea suffer the same war?

I don't know about FUD, but certainly the Sonos software is one of the worst I've ever come across. Do you want to listen to music now? Nope, we aren't playing anything until you update, buster, we don't care about you, only about pushing our last update. Do you want to change your wifi network? Not this speaker, not from the Windows app, only from the Android app, aaaaand... it doesn't work, after tens of trials. They recommend resetting the speaker to factory settings, but I'm too scared of never being able to connect again, keeping two wifi networks now.

They have invented the mainframe!

The more I read about "centuries-old arguments", the more I realize that they are all just about semantics, about non-defined words, usually. In this case, "free will".

A walker finds a fork in the road. Will he turn right or left? Of course if you study the biology of the subject you will end up deciding that the answer is pre-ordered. Some stimuli reach a body, that is a biological machine, of course it will react based on the current situation of the pieces of the machine and the stimuli. What else there is, after all? But is it predictable? I would say no, the level of complexity is completely caotic. If not predictable, arguing about it is a moot point.

When "free will" is mentioned, what we usually mean is "able to change". That is, not that one particular fork of the road, but the possibility of somebody, that always take the left turn, to change and take the right turn. I suppose that there is nothing in the book that contradicts the possibility of such a change. What contradicts is a much more "religious", I would say, meaning of free will, as attached to responsability. That is also moot, if the lone shooter that kills seven has no free will is of no importance to the society, he (can I say he?, it's usually a he) must be punished, to change (the other meaning of free will) his behaviour, and possibly the behaviour of others.

Well, I don't know. You are intelligent, but can you design a more efficient version of yourself? If not, why you assume the computer will be able to?

I guess it will depend on the human. Some humans are apparently only intelligent enough to utter meaningless statements, and even so, they reach high positions in the world, like CEO of a big bank.

Lacking a clear definition of intelligence, the statement is not even wrong. If the idea is that some computer will resolve an IQ test in a 10,000th of the time a human needs, then, I suppose, is true. Computers already beat us at chess, considered a brainy game, so they are already more intelligent than us, no need to wait. The word "intelligence" is used as a throw weapon, like "terrorist" or "nazi". It's meaning is reduced to whatever the speakers want to say.

Of course there will be computers more intelligent, in almost any sense, than a human being. However, if that computer takes three stadium-sized data centers, and consumes the power of a hefty nuclear station, I'd argue about what's the point. Just breed a more intelligent human being, who will consume just a couple of sandwiches.

If the video makes no use of the name of Hanks, and it's simply a cartoonish person with a likeness to Mr.Hanks, can you sue about it, or is basically grey zone?

I understand that they will stop billing their customers. If so, I'm in favor.

All companies should do the same, bill their customers AND their providers too. Supermarkets will bill their food providers, as they are profiting unfairly from the convenience of the supermarket, that cost a lot to build and keep in good order and all that, and the bloody farmers just look at the apples grow in the trees, and make a lot of money.

Unfortunately, they might get a hearing, because logic does not matter, what matters is who has money. If somebody is making lots of money, there is an instinct to tax them, bill them, divide them, whatever. In Italy they will tax the banks, because they are making money. I call that fair, because they will bail out the banks too, when they lose money :-) Apparently capitalism is a difficult concept to master.