Agreed.

That OP is silly to call out the use of the term 'learn' for a non-sentient thing.

I, for one, do not welcome these overlords. I have ample hardware to survive an apocalypse. If things should drastically change then I have many computers that will last the rest of my life. As it is, I really do not see any reason to upgrade to new hardware. I upgrade because I like it. The added speed is trivial these days. The new features are seldom used. Now they may be able to keep me off the 'net (sort of) but I would just build an extension to my home network and allow access from others.

I also have radios and nohow. I even have power in a variety of ways. I can even fix my devices. If SHTF I will still be amusing myself for the rest of my life with nary a blink. I do not even have to shop for most food stuffs I suppose. I seldom do as it is. I grow an hunt much of my food. I have firearms and friends and lots of land in the middle of nowhere. I suppose I will by alright.

If it is a parlor trick, it will be more accidental than clever I suspect. Even that would teach us something new.

It's one thing to question the very preliminary theory of operation for the thing, it's quite another to demand that it is doing nothing just because it would be inconvenient.

My gut feeling is that whatever it is, it won't violate conservation of momentum.

Machines are said to learn, but are not sentient and do not think. Memory plastic isn't sentient either.

In such cases it is paramount that you contact the hardware vendor and insist that they provide an updated driver to ensure that it works in your environment. One thing that does worry me is that some will have an OEM driver. What is to prevent a driver rolled out through the Microsoft Update service from forcing an install of an ineffective driver when you already have one from the OEM's site with a different version number?

Yup. I know they have one online. I used to subscribe to OED's online site. I now have asked my "local" library (it is actually a 75 minute drive away) and can just access it for free so I no longer pay for it directly. Your local library likely has a subscription (I think that is what they call it) and you can enter the numbers in the box and be done with it. It worked for me, at least. I find them handy when I am looking up more than just a definition.

It would be nice if they would fix the code, support UTF-8, and *maybe* find a way for us to edit it on our own for our own consumption. I can imagine that doing so would not be too difficult as a user could load their own per-user code automatically including our own CSS. I seem to recall having seen a few sites that allow this though I can not think of any off the top of my head.

They push against the propellant they throw away. You should spend more time understanding what was said and less figuring out a lame excuse to say someone is wrong.

We get it, we get it. You're the god of science and he's a doodie head.

No, healthy skepticism allowed us to realize that the mass of an object won't affect it's acceleration due to gravity in a vacuum and yet not be on repeated expeditions looking for a unicorn nest. Cynicism would have us still believing that an object set into motion remains in motion until it gets tired, then it falls.

Not necessarily. Leading WAGs include that it is thrusting against dark matter or space itself. In those scenarios, momentum is still conserved.

But it's not generating thrust by microwave emission. If the thrust is of the form of action-reaction, we have yet to detect what it is pushing against. Hence the wild speculation about virtual particles or the fabric of space. Even those seem more likely than it being truly reactionless but it wouldn't be any less useful if one of those proves to be the case.

So the reproduction of the reproduction of the reproduction of the experiment still leaves you disbelieving?

I agree, a scale-up is in order so we can get a better look, but surely by now, it's clear we are looking at something new even if it's not what we think it is.