The $10k Apple watch is a red herring. It will be purchased by people for whom dropping $10k on a watch is akin to the average person buying an impulse candy bar in the grocery store checkout line.
For me, the real gouging is the straps of the non-sport edition watch. The "sport" watch bands really don't work in a professional setting or with any sort of formal clothing. The low end non-sport come with the sport wristband which also does not look very professional. So, for something acceptable at the office, you are looking to spend at least $700. Essentially, you are forced to pay double the price just to get a band that doesn't look like it comes on a swatch. If the bands were replaceable with standard bands, you could get a perfectly professional looking band for $50
In any event, my take on Apple products is that they make a good product, but they never make sense to buy until the second or third generation. By then, the kinks have been worked out.
IIAAL.
What robots are doing is not replacing lawyers per-se, but making lawyers more productive (just like accountants, programmers, and a host of other white collar professions). It used to be (and still is to some extent) that in large lawsuits, you would need armies of lawyers just reviewing documents produced by the other side to see if they were relevant to the case. 90% of them would just be emails asking to go grab coffee, 9% would be tangentially related to the case, and 1% would actual be important to the case. The people who did this work were either junior associates or temporary "doc review" attorneys, who generally graduated from bottom of the barrel law schools and couldn't find more interesting work. Now, algorithms can sort out most of those irrelevant documents, leaving human attorneys to sort through only the tangentially relevant documents from the very relevant documents.
But while this allows fewer lawyers to handle more cases, it doesn't remove the fundamental need for lawyers. The only way a robot will handle substantive legal work, no matter how good the AI, will be if a robot has the same psychological impact on humans as another human. Would you rather a robot deliver the closing arguments in your murder trial or a human? Even if the words were the same, I imagine most people are far more likely to emotionally connect with a human. Even if we were to accept robot lawyers, the profession really boils down to politics and the weighing of the rights of different parties. If we ever get to the point we are comfortable with robots doing that, we will be at the point where ALL human professions are obsolete.
I voted indifference (really initial fascination, followed by indifference).
The most likely scenario for the discovery of intelligent life would be a program like SETI picking up a signal from a civilization hundreds of thousands or millions of light years away. Were there something closer, it's likely we would have picked up on it by now. There would be no way to actually communicate with the civilization, which would likely be long gone anyways by the time their signal reached us. Scientists would spend careers attempting to discern the meaning of the signals, but it's unlikely much useful information would be gleaned. After all, most broadcasts from earth amount to "I Love Lucy" reruns, and there's no reason to think the aliens would be any different.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.