I just want it go go from off (not standby) to an open document in a useful application in under three seconds.

No, inflation is not good. Deflation is not good. A government/central bankthat spends its time actually understanding the how money flows through the economy (as opposed to spending its time convincing everyone that it understands these things) would aim for a combination of interest rates, QE, and out-and-out printing money that makes the inflation as near zero as possible with maybe half an epsilon's worth of safety margin in the positive direction to keep the banks from freezing up.

So, when a computer can infer on new understandings, they will be able to create art? Your tone makes it seem impossible, but your premise outlines conditions under which they can do it. All we need is an inference engine.

I can only seem "dry wit" comedy improving. Many of the jokes would be something like an allusion. It's a common phrase for someone to say a quote from Shakespeare as a joke, or to refer to the deeper meaning without spending time explaining. Often it's humorous as one is making fun of the trivial nature assigned to a deep thought. Someone trying to pick between a green and orange squishy drink, saying "to be or not to be" as if the selection was a life-and death manner would be funny (or at least an attempt to be so). That's subtle, and requires a contextual awareness and knowledge of the sum of human production (and associated likelihood that the audience would understand the reference). A similar reference to "Clouds" by Aristophanes would probably be funnier if the audience got it, but has a near-zero chance of having the joke understood.

That level of understanding of humor and audience is going to hold back good creativity.

Unfortunately, by your definition I don't believe that there *are* any civilized nations. It's not that I disagree with you, exactly. But I believe that your idealized definition of civilized doesn't map to any country in the world either at the present time or at any previous time.

Plenty of excuses, but sorry, if we're using English "kill the messenger" essentially means to act in such a way as to discourage others with the same (or sufficiently similar) message.

You may use the excuses to claim that the intent was other than "killing the messenger", but not to argue that that isn't what they did. To argue that that isn't what they did you would (probably) need to show that their action did not serve to discourage others with similar communications.

OTOH, perhaps in Spanish the phrase would be taken literally, as it once was in English. But in modern English "kill" has many figurative uses, such as "kill the spotlight" (though I think that's now more commonly "strike the spot", which also doesn't involve hitting the light).

The same reason we tested inferior chess programs against grand masters. So we could learn the weaknesses, and improve upon them. So testing an AI improves the AI, like testing a chess program lead to improvements in the chess program.

When I was at school, the pool was olympic length, and the high jump could be set at olympic heights, as well as lower ones. So you do what you can, and compare your failure to the desired levels. It's not just the pass-fail as given. But it lets you compare your failure to the ideal.

Like lasting longer in chess against a grand master, or fooling more people in a Turing test (or lasting longer in the question sequence until the tester correctly identifies the AI).

It's in your nature to eat, so you don't "want" to eat, you eat because it's in your nature.

What the AI researchers don't consider is that humans are driven by millions of (mostly conflicting) wants. Hierarchies of needs cover a small subset of those most prominent. But we aren't programming in behavioral parameters, just "intelligence", and that's why we'll fail. Humans have the desire to be liked, and to please others. How do you program that into a computer?

I think the answer is unrelated to the tech.

Have you ever noticed here that anyone who mentions actual qualifications is shouted down as a fake argument from authority? That people look down on those with certifications as having worked for the cert, and not understanding that which they are certified in?

The US is firmly in the dark ages. People celebrate ignorance and backwardness. Educated people are more likely to see through the lies of the political elite (of both sides) and thus are attacked constantly in our society.

There's an elitism in being "dumb". The popularity of things like The Simple Life, where two highly ignorant people have their ignorance held up on display, indicates we celebrate ignorance. It makes us feel better.

And electric cars are something that we perceive as the rational people selecting, and that's a bad thing. It's generally not the 1% that are driving them around, but the rational 50%. And they are the worst members of society. Educated, and making more than the poor. We should hold them back. The 1% are afraid of them because they have the capability of pulling the 1% down, if they ever woke up.

So, it's classist, not ecomomic or practical reasons that holds back electric cars. When you can't tell the electric from the diesel (other than the cloud of soot behind them), then they will take off. Until then, they are targets for ridicule and hate.

All a byproduct of the classism in our society, not any rational reasons against electric.

Lawmakers aren't omniscient. They can't conceive of every possible misinterpretation from law-trolls looking to pick a fight. They try, but they do miss. So, do you enforce the law like the obvious missing comma is there, or do you effectively nullify a law through judicial activism? Apparently you are on the side of judicial activism.

He's in rural WV, he doesn't have running water or electricity at his house.

A value that fluctuates every single second (e.g. an exchange rate between Euro and USD for instance)
A value that decreases over time (inflation, etc.)

Do you understand sharing billions among the governments so that every country owes every other country money and vice versa? Because I sure as hell don't.

Do you understand Quantitative Easing? I don't.

Do you understand quite a lot about any currency whatsoever beyond you earn a number, you have that number in your bank, and at some point you "cash out" that number for physical goods that may, or may not, be the same price as last time you did that?

How much is billions of Euros of Greek asset worth at the moment? How about Zimbabwean dollars?

Bitcoin is no different to anything else. Your USD or GBP or Euro means NOTHING except by common agreement between all parties as to what it means.

So don't give me that shit.

Dune Messia has more legible when it was originally published in serial installments in Analog magazine. The somewhat disjointed plot was less apparent if you only read 1/4 of in a month.

Thanks for saving me the typing.

She won't give a shit. Most people voting for her don't understand what crime she committed and even think it's something great because ... terrorists, child molesters, whatever, I don't keep track of the boogeyman du jour.

Name her what you want. She'll laugh it off 'til someone misses the brakes accidentally next time she crosses the street.