Okay, so we have a benchmark where the bog-standard human being scores 94.9%.

Then in February (that's three months ago), Microsoft reports hitting 95.06%; the first score to edge the humans.

Then in March, Google notches 95.18%.

Now it's May, and Baidu puts up a 95.42%.

Meh. Swinging dicks with big iron are twiddling with their algorithms to squeeze out incremental, marginal improvements on an arbitrary task.

I presume that next month it will be IBM boasting about "leading the race" and being "much greater than their competitors". The month after that it will be Microsoft's turn again. Google will be back on top in August or so...unless, of course, some other benchmark starts getting some press.

One should be very wary of the distinction between "run without refueling" and "run without regular maintenance". Even assuming that the reactor's fuel would last, the ancillary equipment associated with the reactor's operation (coolant pumps and such) and electricity generation (steam turbines) certainly wouldn't be expected to operate unattended and unmaintained for months, let alone years.

That said, the fifty-year planned lifespan of the Nimitz-class includes, if I'm not mistaken, a mid-life refuelling and complex overhaul (RCOH). To be fair, the reactor's fuel would likely last longer than the planned 20-25 years if the carrier weren't actively steaming--but I wouldn't trust the other parts to last anywhere near so long.

Rape prevention is a really difficult topic - most advice revolves around telling women what they can't do; don't dress provocatively in case you inflame someone's desire, don't engage in eye contact or conversation with strangers, don't walk alone after dark, basically don't live as an independent human being in case someone who doesn't respect the rule of society decides that against your wishes they are going to assault you.

The closest analog is telling a guy not to carry his wallet around with him, having money on his person was just asking for it when it comes to being mugged.

There are certainly actions you can take to minimise the risk of being targeted by a sociopath - plan on traveling in well lit areas, travel with friends, etc.. Of course this ignores the fact that for women most assaults are by people they know in familiar environments; stranger rape is the exception not the rule. But either way - victim blaming an assault victim, whether it be rape or a mugging, is blaming someone for the anti-social behaviours of someone else.

The 'victim-blaming' of the guys up thread is telling these guys to change their own anti-social behaviour. Sitting behind a computer screen screaming vitriol at people over XBOX live or posting hate on /r/redpill is not going to get you a date let alone laid (if that's your total end goal). Getting out into the world and treating other people with some level of respect might.

My mistake - I was taught that all mules were female. Obviously I was taught wrong.

FTFY

From the studies I've seen, most men are financially as well off within 2 years of divorce as they were before, whereas most women at significantly behind where they were for a decade or more after divorce - and that's after getting the house and the kids.

Most 'stay-at-home-moms' have no retirement savings, they aren't qualified for well paying jobs, they still have the upkeep on the house and kids to cover, the support payments men complain about so often generally don't cover 100% of those costs (I'm not saying it should).

People don't get divorced for the fun of it and it is extremely rarely for financial gain. Sure, we see the odd story of some super wealthy guy who marries a gold digger who takes him for millions - but that's not the norm.

That's like people who think teenagers get pregnant for the increase in benefit payments - the costs generally exceed any increase in welfare payment - it's not a profit making option.

Marriage should be like a tattoo - don't get one unless you plan to keep it forever. But if you really need to, there should be an option for getting rid of it. It's better than going through the rest of your days miserable.

Somewhat ironic given mules are all female.

Sure, men were conscripted to fight in the army, they died, it sucked.

It's a bit of a myth that women stayed at home and lived a life of luxury while this was going on.

Women worked in the fields next to their men folk, they looked after the house and the children. During times of war they were taken as trophies.

History hasn't been kind to either gender - but traditionally women were seen as little other than breeding stock to be traded. It's only recently that being self-sufficient and having a choice in the matter has been an option for any percentage of the female population at large.

There are women everywhere - have you tried looking down the back of the sofa? Maybe if 'finding a woman' is important to them they should work on developing traits/behaviours that are attractive to women. If it's not as important as perfecting the headshot in COD - well, we know what they are more likely to achieve.

As opposed to all the abuse heaped on women who acknowledge that they might have sexual desires of their own. Slut-shaming sexually active women is probably not the fastest way into their pants.

Stop treating women (or men) as the enemy. Relationships are largely about common ground, that goes for friends or lovers. If the only people you have anything in common with is a bunch of misogynistic haters who treat 50% of the population with disdain it's going to be difficult to form a meaningful bond with people that don't share your worldview.

"Blaming the victim" is telling a rape victim they shouldn't have been wearing a mini-skirt - they were asking for it. Telling guys to get out from behind the computer screen and talk to women as if they were people isn't victim blaming. It's telling them to take responsibility for their choices in how they interact with the world at large.

PUAs aren't helping - they aren't trying to teach guys how to form a relationship, they are teaching guys to treat women as disposable conquests. You're not going to find a life partner that way. To spend 40+ years with someone, you'd want to actually like them.

WTF? What do you even mean by this - do you think they need someone to get them dressed in the morning or tell them to eat?

Most women I know (that is, members of the female gender over 18) are generally more capable of looking after themselves than most guys of a similar age.

If you're saying girls because you're looking for children - then of course they're less capable of looking after themselves.

Unless by 'look after themselves' you mean you don't find them physically attractive and think you deserve a 8/10 or better. At which point you probably need to go take a good hard look at yourself.

Like most hobbies, there is a continuum of people of a variety of levels of attractiveness, social ability or intelligence. Most people will be average - because that's pretty much what it means. It's probable that you also fall into the category of average too - so stop expecting the world to throw exceptional at your feet - it ain't going to happen.

What, treat women as a person, rather than an opponent to be conquered - but they might get friendzoned if they do that. :(

That would work...except that the employer insisted that she keep the phone with her and powered on at all times. According to the claim, she was on call for client emergencies, even when off the clock.

No-fault is about taking money away from lawyers, who used to litigate each and every auto accident as a lawsuit in court before the insurers would pay. Eventually the insurers decided that they spent more on lawyers than accident payments, and they had no reason to do so.

If you want to go back to the way things were, you are welcome to spend lots of time and money in court for trivial things, and see how you like it. I will provide you with expert witness testimony for $7.50/minute plus expenses. The lawyers charge more.

In general your insurer can figure out for themselves if you were at fault or not, and AAA insurance usually tells me when they think I was, or wasn't, when they set rates.

It's an interesting question. On the other hand, most collisions are something a human driver could have avoided somehow...but didn't.

I would be shocked if they didn't "know" something like it. I can't imagine any car (let alone the entire group of 44 which didn't have a collision) doing a full year of city driving without encountering multiple situations where another driver failed to appropriately yield the right of way.

If we don't have more than two children per couple, the human race would've died out a long time ago.

I think the proper way to state that is "If we didn't in the past", not "If we don't". If we were to have 2 children per couple (approximately, the real value is enough children to replace each individual but not more) from this day on, it would not be necessary to adjust the number upward to avoid a population bottleneck for tens of thousands of years.

The Northern California Amtrak is actually pretty good for commuting from Sacramento to the Bay Area and back because the right of way is 4 tracks wide in critical places and it has priority over other trains for much of the time.

Acela in the Boston/NY/DC corridor is also good, because the right of way is 4 tracks or more for most of the way, and it has a track to itself along a lot of the route. Other railroads run on parallel tracks.

For the most part, though, Amtrak suffers from not having exclusive track. It runs on freight lines that host cars so heavy that the rail bends an inch when the wheels are on top of it (I've seen this first hand).