Hopefully the NTSB's tier 2 people are ready; since they did in fact try turning it off and turning it on again and there's still more to the situation.

So all we have to do to vindicate our investment in glorious AI is keeping firing the expensive labor until we get the team down to people so ignorant of the code that their guess is worse than the bot's guess; and they'll have no reason to doubt the bot's output?

Sounds like a win-win to me!

Not just EVs, but self driving tech. BYD taking responsibility for it, while Tesla has gone to lengths to ensure it disengages milliseconds before you die, so they can blame the driver.

BYD is installing 1000kW chargers in the UK this year. For comparison the fastest Tesla chargers are less than 1/3rd of that power, and aren't even the fastest in Europe. 1000kW is to support their 5 minute recharge times.

Don't worry, The Trump-et fart will fix it on day two, right after he ends the Russia-Ukraine war on day one.
I guess his excuse can be that day one wasn't quite long enough.

and science has got to go. The scientists are all practically communists right? And what you don't know can't hurt you, right? La La La La La I can't hear you.

Typically you become that wealthy by having rich parents.

Sure enough, his dad was a stock broker, did well enough to send him to prep school. The contacts and the financial support were all in place before he was born.

I think you are right. Europe may be better off without US style massive GDP gains while the citizens suffer. Also apologies for the UK tanking its GDP with Brexit, I didn't vote for it but it's a pretty damning reflection on our education system.

Appointing Gunn was a good idea though. His DC movies and TV show (Peacemaker) have all been good. Reviews for Superman suggest that it's a great movie and is likely to kick off the next big cinematic universe. Gunn has taken it in a new direction by going back to being more like Reeves' Superman movies. A bit goofy, a bit silly, but compelling. He leans in to how silly the comics are, a big departure from the trend since the late 80s Batman movies of getting darker and grimmer.

The question that should concern us in the software dev field is how well are the best AIs progressing at
1. eliciting requirements from humans who have various degrees of vague understanding of what they want and even less understanding of what they really need, and
2. translating requirements into a system design with good characteristics (performant, future-proof, scalable architecture and component/tool/framework choices, fit-for-purpose, maintainable, adaptable design etc.)

*bell curve lol

You know the story of the frogs (which are cold-blooded) sitting in a pot of water and thinking everything is fine as the temperature of the water rises and rises, until one minute, the water boils. i.e. an analogy about the dangers of unanticipated phase changes.

Just because you've been able to say "see, it's not different this time" several times in the past does not mean that I will be wrong when I say "It's different this time!"

The difference is that the cognitive capability and ready-to-hand, exploitable information access of AIs are approaching and surpassing or have surpassed an increasing chunk of the bell curbe of humans' capabilities this time, rather rapidly.

It would be amusing if it weren't so annoying; but you often see people who embrace both positions without a hint of awareness of the contradiction: when condemning the non-breeders they are 'selfish' and 'hedonistic' and so on; but, in the same breath, children are their greatest pleasure and most fulfilling experience and so on and so forth. What's it going to be? Are children the cutting edge of indulgence and everyone who is missing out will die bitter and miserable; or are the people failing to pay the flesh tithe to our civilization repulsively self-centered for avoiding a massive hassle that one undertakes only as a grim duty?

I'd be curious what, if any, role the increasingly obviously hollow promise of progress may have.

In absolute terms residents of low-income countries are usually more fucked than those of high income ones; but in terms of trajectory they often have a somewhat rosier picture: if GDP per capita is really low you don't really have an option but to be really poor, there's just not enough productivity to support being otherwise; but there's a fairly straightforward alignment of incentives: unless there's a local supply of mineral wealth to skim, even the local elites generally want everyone to be more prosperous because there's just not that much money to be gouged out of subsistence mud farmers; and there are a variety of plausible avenues toward greater productivity in the form of people looking for new manufacturing areas and the like.

Similar things hold for various quality-of-life stuff. Low income countries tend to see a lot of morbidity and mortality from lack of relatively cheap and simple medical interventions; but have a corresponding selection of relatively cheap and simple improvements that will improve population welfare if realized.

Wealthy countries are, obviously, absolutely wealthier; but are often harder to write an optimistic trajectory for: if most of the obvious productivity improvements have already been made and you still feel squeezed it's a lot less plausible to believe that you will grow out of that problem(both because there are fewer evident paths to notable growth; and because feeling poor in a wealthy society is often a good sign that someone who isn't you is good at capturing value; and will probably remain good at that even if more value is unlocked); and if most of the relatively simple, relatively cheap, improvements in things like medical interventions and occupational health and safety standards have already been made it becomes much less evident how your children will do better than you did.

My impression is that, among people who actually reason their way toward parenthood, there's a general desire to see good outcomes for their children. This often involves heavy doses of irrational optimism regardless of location; but there are definitely some contexts where at least expecting your children to have it better than you is within the realm of the plausible; and others where you need to be hitting the copium pretty hard to imagine that they'll beat the odds dramatically enough to do so.

I assume I'm not supposed to ask what 'our own civilization' has done to deserve our care; and just swallow the implication that suffering as an end in itself is totally sensible?

Some humans do have a strong desire to become parents, which is unsurprising since species that don't reproduce tend not to last very long. There are exceptions, pandas being the obvious one.

The question is, how strong and how common is this desire to become a parent, and are people overcoming it due to their financial situation or some social pressure, or were we always like this and it's mostly due to contraception?