Or better, test your aid to make sure it's actually working. A technique could work in multiple studies of competing hypotheses and still not work later on.

But if you are spending millions of dollars without checking how well it's working, why not?

I'm not sure that's relevant. Deworming kids isn't exactly a big idea.

The only way to reduce carbon emissions is to improve our technology to the point that non-emitting technologies are cheaper than emitting technologies. Electric cars, etc.

The reason politicians won't come to a meaningful agreement is because the population doesn't want it. Most people aren't willing to give up their car (or even double the price of gas) for the sake of global warming.

It would be easier to get everyone to agree to switch to nuclear energy than to agree to meaningful limits on CO2 emissions, and you should be familiar with how difficult of a political problem that is. People don't want to switch to nuclear because of.........actually I don't really know why, but even in countries that actually want to do something about CO2 (like Germany) are switching away from nuclear, so that tells you how hard the problem is.

Indeed. It's more important to get high quality nutrients than to try to demonize one or the other.

See, that's the problem you get into with people complaining you're raising the bar. The mouse maze was one the earliest demonstrations of AI.

Now you'll say, "that's not what I meant!", and you will be right, but then people will complain that you're moving the goal posts.

Artificial bars. The requirement is simple, have a computer that thinks like a human.

You don't even know what algorithm the human brain uses. They didn't in the 80s, either. Figure that out before you complain about bars being moved.

Nice flowchart. I like how diagrams the structure clearly. With such clean diagrams, I understand why it got accepted.

Hardware from the 80s is a different kind of hardware. The designers had little to work with, and as a result came up with exciting and interesting designs. Working with their hardware is, in a way, working with them, understanding the puzzles they had and how they solved them.

Plus the smell is something you don't forget. Mmmmmmm.

It seems like the hard part would be getting Linux to run on such a small machine. That's what impresses me the most, that you managed to do it.

Recently I was looking for some assembly language info for the original Altair (the first microcomputer), and I came across this. It was a different kind of assembly than I was expecting, it looks like some kind of Ikea manual but much worse. Apparently it cost twice as much to get it assembled, instead of merely a box of parts.

Then after you were done, you had 256 bytes of RAM, and no keyboard.

In any case, if you look at that, it will give you the imagination needed for a tutorial for something like this.

That's why many people aren't working on it.

But for people who do enjoy that kind of thing, it sure beats watching TV or hanging out at a bar.

Here's a reference for that. We were still getting those predictions in 2001.

What exactly do you think the paper says? Did you read it?

In thought experiments anything can happen. :)

Would it make you feel better if a scientific journal published a paper?

Sounds like a fun place to work. Are you hiring?