Just because we use as single word to refer to human faculties collectively doesn't make them one thing (e.g. planning). Billions of years of evolution have furnished us with a swiss army knife of cognitive abilities from being able to proto-count (subitize) to being able to infer where other people around us are directing their attention.

A lot of our intelligent behavior is being able utilize these disparate capabilities *together*. For example, I notice the people around me are looking at some other people, who are looking back; I recognize that some of these people are in my in-group and other are outsiders; I perceive (subitize) that there are more of them than of us. There are some people who can't do this because they aren't as capable as other people at various links of the chain, and yet these people are often highly "intelligent" in other ways.

As we build AI tools, there is little point in them unless they *exceed* human abilities in some manner. So arguably we have already AI tools that, on certain tests with well-chosen constraints, are smarter than humans in a very narrow and specific way -- certainly in their ability to process large volumes of data. What we won't get at first is that kind of seamless integration of different kinds of mental capabilities. This integration is so natural and effortless for us we call all our highly disparate abilities by a single word.

Just last week, where I live at the intersection, a car from the right side turned into a street while the light was red, and went through the Zebra just before I was going to go thru (I had a green walk light). And I can't even begin to COUNT the number of time somebody went out of parking and nearly collided with me 'cause looking for incoming traffic is difficult (/s)... Even when you respect the rule, as a person walking or as a biker, hearing the cars can be life saving. Because there are waaaaay too many idiot in car not paying attention.

[*] Note that for nuclear power "safely" is defined as "100X safer than any other form of power generation".

Your Model 3 already has that.

This claim of youth of EV drivers makes no sense to me. EVs are still quite expensive, far too expensive for most young people to be able to afford. Anecdotally, I don't know any EV owners/drivers under the age of 35.

I've owned EVs for 12 years, and am well aware of those dynamics. Shortly after I bought my first EV, I drove it up to Rocky Mountain National Park, arriving at the park with a near-empty battery, but I recovered almost 50% of my battery on the way down.

Even with that... I still need a much larger battery to confidently do what I want. I've done the math.

36-foot fifth wheel trailer with slide outs.

Elaborate on what you mean by "globalist".

They had a chance to do this right. They could have, say, mandated a series of tests (which they can update the rules for at regular intervals if they prove insufficient) for testing whether models are memorizing and leaking data that they shouldn't. But as always, leave it to the EU to legislate methods rather than outcomes.

And big companies don't want to be fined into oblivion, so yes, it matters. And with rules like:

untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet

You might as well have just entirely banned scraping from the internet. Who wants a diffusion model that's great at everything except has no bloody clue what a face looks like?

How many commercial products do you see on the market?

Nobody is saying that "neural implants" are new. Trying to make them practical, such as not getting rapidly encapsulated and not having a hole in the head allowing infections to spread straight into the brain and having sufficient bandwidth for common tasks - is the point. This is not easy (particularly the first issue), which is why it's taken so long. The old meat cleaver-like Utah Arrays in particular just plow fat pins straight through blood vessels and trigger an immediate immune response.

Shh, we're supposed to be bashing tech that utterly transforms the lives of paralyzed people because the guy who owns the company is a jerk.

The GP was talking about "glacier ice that is already in the water", not ice that has newly moved from land to sea.

And said ice functions as a barrier for the land ice, greatly slowing down its ability to progress into the ocean.

Also, it's an example of Bad Amateur Science that floating icebergs shed by glaciers don't affect sea level. What's true in the case of a glass of water in your kitchen is not true in the ocean. Freshwater ice, melted and diffused in seawater, results in an elevated sea level. It's a small impact (only about 3% that of land-based ice melting), but still meaningful.

Basically: a chunk of ice, floating in water, displaces its own weight in water. At 0C, Freshwater ice is .9167g/cc, and freshwater is 0.998g/cc. If 0.998g of freshwater (1cc) is displaced, then the volume of the ice is 0.998/0.9167cc, or 1.0887cc - 1cc below the waterline, 0.0887cc above it. As it melts, it shrinks back to 1cc, equaling the formerly displaced water.

Seawater at 0CC however is 1,028g/cc, aka 3% more. For a given amount of displacement, there's an extra 3% of freshwater ice volume and mass. This melts to a volume 3% larger than than the displaced volume.

Think of it using a extreme example. Pretend that neutron stars were stable containable liquids and not highly explosive condensed states maintained by gravity, and that you had a bucket containing a thin layer of it at the bottom. You fill the rest of the bucket with a giant chunk of ice. The neutron star "sea level" rise from having the ice atop it is basically immeasurable. That's your starting point. Now let the ice melt. Now the entire bucket is full of liquid. The "sea level" has risen dramatically.

Of course, it's even more complicated than this in reality, because you don't have a separation of saltwater and freshwater, but rather they merge, and the net density isn't exactly a linear weighted average between the two. Close, but not exactly.

Right. You, a rando on the internet, know so much more than the FDA, because you read something on the internet somewhere. *eyeroll*

It turns out they'd known about brain rejection of the connection for several years. They'd not been able to solve it prior to the first patient, which means they installed something they knew was defective and they knew what the specific defect was.

There's next to no chance they've solved the issue so quickly, so I'm deeply concerned the FDA is being negligent here.