Direct point-to-point links have no demands for other content. It's when you buy from an ISP who determines that they will not deliver part of the Internet they don't like. I've bought leased fibre services in many places, and nobdy has ever asked to put their content on it. The users have already paid someone for access to that Netflix stream, but that access provider is trying to extort additional profit from content providers.

Old style TV takes about as much as a single Netflix stream. So for every channel canceled, they can support one more Netflix user. That doesn't sound like the channels are such a waste.

So they don't need to pay those three, but they must pay someone, for what amounts to transit to themselves. Transit was a concept when a small ISP bought from a large ISP to get the small number of users to The Internet across unequal networks. Peers are when the networks were more even.

It was always from the consumer point of view. Only recently did the concept of charging content for content transit. If my ISP is charging for content transit, I want my rebate/discount. They are getting paid twice for the same thing.

async is still synchronous. You would have the region close to the clock input running at C+0. on the other side of the chip, you'd be running with a clock at C+0.9. Where the sections converged, the clocks would also converge. Two related synchornous functions (even off the same clock) are not async just because they are not synchronous.

My words fail me. The operation is clocked. That the clock doesn't happen at the same time everywhere doesn't change the nature of the operation being clocked. And all of them from the same clock.

Also, hard problems often have simple solutions. The clock doesn't propogate across the chip? The send it to all the chip at the same time. Car analogy. Shortest-path headers are inefficient. So you "tune" the headers. How do you do that? You change the path so they are closer to equal distance.

For a chip, a clock cycle that's exactly one cycle late is perfect. So drift is more important to minimize than lag/delay. So run the clock to the middle of the chip, then equal distant traces to multiple pins. The clock will be the same in as many places in the chip as necessary for proper synchronous operation. Even if the clock speed wasn't enough to cover 10% of the chip, it can still be the same +-5% over the whole chip. It'll just take more pins for clock.

We all know Bees can't fly.

Also, there's the issue of assuming that there's one instruction per clock. It's common for some instructions to take longer than one cycle, and it's possible to have fuzzy logic, and not even link output to clock, though those usually fail.

Just buld an AI that programs AI in a highly parallel fashion. What could possibly go wrong?

Or perhaps he was saying that they should be through a email gateway such that the users reading emails can't get to the Internet. Any phishing attempt would then fail. Unless they requested you email back your login.

Such dichotomies are not realistic. When defined they are always spelled out like "The car is going 300 mph in a 30 mph zone, with lines of parked cars on both sides, and low visibility. A passing plane looses a set of seats, unoccupied, landing facing away from the car at a distance of 50 foot. At the same time, a kid runs out from between parked cars. The road is completely blocked by the child and the seats. What do you hit?"

Yeah, it takes magical couches appearing from nowhere and impossible starting parameters of overly unsafe driving and such. Any "realistic" scenario leaves one clear point of action that is best for all. For 99.9%, braking within your lane is the best action. That last 0.1% could always be the wrong answer and the sum total would be much better than leaving humans in control.

I was always taught Hubris from the Greek tragedy perspective. Hubris is pride, especially when that pride leads to their own downfall. A sitting king who makes bad choices because they are too prideful isn't "hubris" until one of those choices becomes their downfall.

So in the Greek Tragedy definition, it can't be hubris until after the bad decision results in a problem. Aside from some bad P.R., I don't see any problems caused by the excessive pride of the US, or those who work for it, so hubris can not yet be the accurate word.

You can assume rational actors. They aren't, but it's a valid assumption.

Unless you are on a narrow road with barriers on both sides and all lanes full, with no emergency lanes or available space at all, then your "worst case" is still trivial.

If I were programming it, I'd program it to minimize damage. That means avoiding a head-on, and not avoiding traffic with a small speed differential. If the person beside you swerves into you, that's trivial. You hold speed and steer into them, both cars traveling foreward, and nobody injured. The human response is to swerve away from them when not safe to do so, and kill themselves by hitting a tree or wall, while the heart attack victim kills themselves on another tree ahead.

But, for some reason, saving multiple lives and minimizing damage is undesireable because "OMFG, the autonomous car deliberately hit the other car!!!!"

It's also better than the human response in almost all situations. I know of multiple people who killed themselves avoiding animals on the road. I know of nobody who died from hitting one. The statistics aren't kept in a manner that makes it easy to see if my experience is typical or atypical.

But it's not against the law. Or so the government says. It's illegal to weaponize diseases, but not illegal to alter them in a weaponized-like state to test defenses.

The real problem is that the security levels are lax. They are more design rules, not operational ones. You can design for any level and get a certification, but so long as the gear is working, if the processes and people don't work well, you'll end up with a significantly reduced actual safety level. Properly done, you end up with breaches being events like "meteor struck building, destroying air handling systems, and creating a large breach in the envelop" events. Triple redundant power isn't uncommon, but no amount of redundancy can ever be "100%". 100% is impossible. There's always the chance of something almost impossible happening. But when you are examining the chances of an airplane crashing on the building during a hurricane, and alien invasions for the most likely breaches, you are doing good.

Intelligently designed?

They aren't making biological weapons. They are weaponizing germs to then figure out how to protect against weaponized germs.

How do you test whether protections against biological weapons work, if you don't have access to those biological weapons?

Note, I'm not saying I like or support it, but I'm just stating the official line for how they get around bans on things. They claim to not be weaponizing it, as they are just trying to defeat weaponized versions.