I'm glad to stand corrected - I like Devo.

Google says "Devo had three songs on the Billboard Hot 100 in the 1980s: “Whip It” (No. 14 peak in 1980), “Working in the Coal Mine” (No. 43, 1981) and “Theme From Doctor Detroit” (No. 59, 1983)."

Yea, pretty much a one hit wonder. Too weird for mainstream. That video really cracks me up though, definitely a great son IMHO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

LOL, if I had mod points I would award you a funny. In the unlikely event you are serious, if all the cars in Norway were electric 100% of the failures would be electric cars. I suspect you are interested in a better question about comparing failure rates. This requires knowing the number of each kind of car in Norway. If all cars that had calls was 34,000, given the 13% proportion there were calls for 4420 EVs and 29,580 ICE cars. An unvetted search says there are 817,509 EVs and 2,099,935 ICE cars in Norway. Dividing the failures by the total numbers and multiplying by 1000 yields a failure rate per 1000. In this case EVs under these Norwegian conditions had a failure rate of roughly 5.4 per thousand and ICE cars at 14 per thousand. This of course is beside the point. Iâ(TM)ve owned both types of vehicles in Chicago when it was below -10F. If you keep you car charged and plugged in when not in use, the EV always works. ICE cars, preparation doesnâ(TM)t always work. In Norway people know how to prepare for the cold.

I have one and can confirm you are correct for those drive long distances. I own both electric and plug in hybrid and they are excellent for what we use them for. And this is the real point: itâ(TM)s good to have choices because rural and urban people, commuters and construction workers all have different use cases. Let the market decide. Electric cars are good enough, especially with subsidies, that they will replace most gas cars without ham handed government mandates for electric only.

Donâ(TM)t by a short range Leaf if you commonly drive long distances in cold conditions.

...thanks for the news flash Captain Obvious.

There is no question that AGI is possible for human invented systems. That said, biological brains are far more complex that is fully appreciated. There is a common misconception that the number of interconnections between neurons is equivalent to digital transistors and this is provably false.

For example, only one of the two isotopes of Lithium has a profound effect of brain activity even though they are chemically equivalent. This is because the rate of the chemical reaction is different between the two isotopes. Biological neural connections are analog and each can have a vast number of values, not a simple sigmoid function commonly used in digital neural networks. And that is just the "hardware". The "software" of the brain has been programmed by evolution for hundreds of millions of years.

Not only should we avoid underestimating the task of creating AGI, we must ask the question: What is our goal and does that goal benefit humanity? Engineering the solution to building sentient machines is a very difficult task, doing so without integrating well thought out ethics and morality is incredibly reckless.

You've gotten it all wrong. Man has known for thousands of years the moon is made of cheese. The truth is, Uncle Sam needs a place for all the cheese it buys to keep dairy prices stable. In the cold of space, that stuff lasts forever. You can educate yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Thanks for the correction. RISC-V came out from Berkeley in 2010 built upon RISC-1 through RISC-IV which started in the 1980's

Regardless of the advisability of limiting technology to China, RISC-V has been around for decades with boatloads of documentation. Open source isn't a product that can be restricted, it is an idea that already isn't a secret. I suppose you could try to block advancements, but that would just mean a fork of the technology. There are many brilliant well funded Chinese engineers who would be just fine moving forward without western help.

This is not the way.

Heads up displays have been around for decades, I had one in my 2002 Corvette Z06 and my Lincoln Corsair SUV has one now. They aren't that expensive and they still aren't very popular for some unknown reason. Teslas with only one big screen are screaming for a heads up display and even they don't offer the option. The cost of transparent display windshields would be exorbitant, especially for some thing that is prone to replacement.

Transparent displays are a super cool looking technology in search of a problem IMHO. I personally think there are two other applications that make sense. A combination of the new Zeiss holographic camera with a transparent display on a phone is likely to be the first reasonable use of transparent display .If they could integrate some kind of microlens, transparent displays for AR glasses would be another popular commercial application.

LOL, that's quite a hypothetical you've got there. Everyone isn't going to die of political and economic "warfare", and if everyone were to die... Problem solved! No more anti-social behavior :-)

Designing a system where allowing hacked accounts to see my private data should at the very least have clear security warnings. They encourage sharing info with DNA relatives but don't make the implications obvious. It's a case of favoring sales over privacy, and with something like personal health information completely unacceptable.

According to an article in Wired magazine, there are cases of users who use unique email/usernames and complex passwords that were breeched.

In their favor, they now have email based 2-factor authentication, but they should have had that years ago and it should support phone based 2-factor as a default.

...let's all embrace strong data typing.