Analysis shows that their speech is extremely complex and definitely useful. We have already identified sequences representing personal identifiers. These are not animal grunts, they're extremely complex speech patterns that we know carry complex information.

I have no idea where you get your information from, but it's obviously not remotely accurate of from any actual researchers. It also sounds like it's a good 40-50 years out of date, at the very least.

There's actually a lot of information that they communicated in efforts to mitigate the problem of hunters.

We know that whales introduce themselves with a standardised series of clicks and whistles, followed by a sequence that is unique to that whale. Other whales in the area then send a standardised sequence followed by that same unique sequence.

The order is consistent, as are the standardised sequences, and all cetaceans enter a group by this method.

This is, without any fear of doubt, indicative of a notion of protocols and that requires at least a basic distinction between nouns and not-nouns.

How much further you can go is unclear. AI can probably detect standardised constructs, but we wouldn't necessarily know what T they referred to.

The brain starts with the semantics. Some are innate, others are learned, but the semantics is always first. The syntax is then layered on top of this. This is why the high-intelligence end of the autistic spectrum is linked to delayed speech followed by a very rapid process to complex speech. The semantics is being built to a far higher degree, the syntax is postponed until the last possible moment.

AI, as it currently exists, needs a very very large number of examples, far more than the brain by tens of orders of magnitude, and hallucinates far more, because ALL it knows is the syntax. There is no handling of the semantics at all.

This approach can NEVER lead to actual intelligence of any sort, let alone superintelligence. They are solving the wrong problem. And that is why they fail, and why they will only ever fail.

If you want actual intelligence, the syntax must come LAST. And the modern breed of AI researcher is simply far too stubborn and arrogant to fathom that.

Since communism is, by definition, classless, you cannot both be classist and communist.

Racism is, again by definition, incompatible with abstraction.

My conclusion is that you're pretty shaky on definitions.

Make that: I wonder if we'll see anti-SLAPP actions by Trump, Giuliani, or Fox News if they win an anti-defamation suit or appeal of one?

On Thursday, in a unanimous decision, a four-judge New York Supreme Court appellate panel ordered the case to continue, keeping the Dendrite issue alive and also allowing us to proceed in seeking damages based on New York's anti-SLAPP law, which prohibits "strategic lawsuits against public participation."

Hmmm...

I wonder if we'll see SLAPP actions by Trump, Giuliani, or Fox News if they win an anti-defamation suit or appeal of one?

Most states and towns in the USA do not have building codes for residential off-grid battery storage.

I thought that was in the National Electrical Code (NEC) section on solar, at least if they're on the 2017 version (or some earlier versions). Most jurisdictions adopt some version of the NEC (and occasionally move to a later version - my county is on 2017 as of a year or so ago) and then maybe add a few changes, rather than write their own electrical code.

Main remaining downsides, if you want to keep your fire insurance, are finding listed (by an NRTL such as UL) systems (there are a few, even some that are rated for elevations over 1,500 meters - about 79 feet short of 5,000) and that the code now requires a cert for solar systems installers, so if you want to install it all yourself you have to drop a couple hunderd bux on a short online course or hire a pro to make the major connections and maybe do some of the design for your install.

Problem is that gas is often byproduct of oil extraction, and very difficult to transport since it's a gas and disperses, unlike oil that is a liquid and can be stored in a simple container.

So use a thermoacoustic liquefier. Bunch of plumbing and a burner regulator on a par with a water heater, which contains the only moving part. Burn off 30% of it and use the heat energy to turn the rest as liquefied propane (LP) Gas, ready to haul away. One model, about the right size to haul in on a flatbed semi, can output 500 gal per day at that efficiency.

Buybacks signal there is nothing better you can think of doing with all your cash.

Or that you have a lot of cash and other assets and a market mob madness has depressed your stock price to where it's a really good deal to spend some of the cash to take some of the stock out of circulation and concentrate the company's value in the rest of it.

Possibly it's even such a good deal that some rich outsiders could buy up controlling interest, sell off the non-money assets, take that and the cash pile, and come out ahead. That leaves the current employees out of a job and with their unvested options worthless. Better to spend the hostile-takeover bait making the rest of your stock more valueable now, and keep the company running, than wait until the hostiles are buying and screw up the company and its stockholders with poison pills and the like.

They'd disclosed it but the first one hadn't finished testifying under oath about it. And that matters. The latter has status as evidence in court.

The issue is the cell bursts from contact with stomach acid and leaks nasty stuff into the intestines of the child. Stopping the voltage from the battery will not improve safety one iota.

botulism in honey is *incredibly* rare in the first place and by the time the child is onto solids ~6 months they can handle it. A baby is far more likely to get botulism from formula milk than honey, but hey lets recommend babies under 12 months don't have it anyway.

If a baby under 6 months gets hold of a coin cell then that is an epic failure as a parent.

Because if they're explaining to non-scientists, they might as well be explaining to babies. The foundational knowledge taught in schools simply isn't up to the standard needed.

If you can't make useful predictions within the parameters of your model, you can't test the ideas. Ergo, the shut up and calculate side does have a good argument.

Previously, in physics, there has been a three-way dance between theorists who develop the mathematical description, theorists who develop the mechanical description, and practical physicists who carry out observations both to test the theories and to apply them in practical terms. This dance kept everything moving.

This may or may not be the correct way to approach quantum mechanics. The rules are very different in that domain.

On the other hand, it's easy to spot the hostility between the groups and it's obvious that the anticipated new physics isn't getting found. New models are rare and are struggling. The dance hasn't completely stopped, but it is definitely in trouble.

But, of course, that might equally be down to the increased competition, the need to publish trivial results quickly rather than do anything profound, and the greatly reduced investment in blue sky science.

I'm going to suggest it's a mix of stuff. We need a lot more funding, a lot less aggro, and we either need to get the mechanical description partner back on their feet or we need to find an alternative to them if that sort of description just doesn't work in this arena.

But I think the science dance needs three sides. I think we're going to find that the calculate lobby can't advance a whole lot further on their own, and that they cannot produce a theory of everything without some idea of what an everything is.