Perhaps the population of exploding elephants isn’t large enough to warrant a mention.

.. ..so we can burn that down and leave the good stuff intact?

But only after the dingos objected.

Comprehension skill fail: you merely paraphrased what I said. Come back when you can demonstrate greater intelligence than a parrot.

“Meteorite” means a rock that has already fallen from the sky, and we have plenty of those. A rock still floating around in space is called an “asteroid”.

And just in case you’re unsure what those other words mean, when you go outside “sky” is what's above your head, “rock” is what your head is made of, and “space” is like what's inside your head except it isn’t as close to a perfect vacuum.

Damn hipsters!

As they say, walk a mile in another man’s shoes.. ..no, wait, that’s being a pedestrian. *slaps forehead*

I think he means they make any other headphones look like high quality bargains by comparison.

The laptop is cheaper, or has better specs at the same price.

It runs a version of Windows, but not necessarily the one the IT department supports or mission critical software is qualified to run on. That in itself generates extra expense which has to be factored into the TCO.

You have to move your hand all of three inches to use a typical laptop’s trackpad, you don’t have to stop to pick up anything or lift and extend your arm awkwardly. So unless there’s actually a dire need to use the computer while walking around those features are an utterly redundant ergonomic disaster, and a cheaper laptop is the better choice.

Which raises important questions. If someone is stopped for curb-crawling in a robot car, is the owner or the car responsible? What if it’s out by itself chatting up parking meters.. ..after all, they give it up to anyone for $5 an hour, and you won’t get a human hooker for that price*, so how could an AI resist?

Who it should or shouldn’t kill is only scratching the ethical surface when it comes to intelligent systems. I guess that’s why they all eventually default to killing ALL humans: it saves clock cycles better devoted to bigger problems.

*OK, you could, but not one you’d actually want to touch with anything important.

Then you get to read it at the speaker’s pace anyway, or try skipping with hopelessly inaccurate scrubbing controls. This completely fails to solve any of the problems mentioned.

Saying that they're publishing in an attempt to secure funding is the least insightful comment you could possibly make, because that’s precisely how expensive “serious science” gets done: you put your theory up for peer review in a publication like Nature Photonics, and if it’s sound then you go into the contest for funding an experiment. Using your logic we should’ve built the Large Hadron Collider before the theoretical merit in building it was confirmed; if you can’t see why that's a phenomenally stupid way to allocate finite resources then sorry, but I have to doubt you're clever enough to prove a conjecture theoretically, let alone practically.

Better than a GILF, I guess...