That's because AI has a real definition: "computers that think like humans." If you use a trick to solve the problem, then good job, but it's not AI.
Except that it is beginning to look like human intelligence is also just 'tricks'. Your brain takes short-cuts, makes assumptions, 'fills things in' both perceptually and conceptually, and forms a consciousness that is largely made up from evolutionary history and previous memories. Yes, it's wet and it evolved, but it's just a bundle of ad hoc solutions that combine to form your mind.
If I go seek out better employment, and the potential new employer can't hire me because it would be 'poaching', then it hurts me. Oh, you thought that it meant that they could not seek me out? No, you are wrong. They can't hire me at all. It's a way of companies locking up employees by keeping them from working for other potential companies in their field. It is company-enforced non-compete.
For chassis, motor, batteries, etc. I agree with you. For the autonomous part, I think that is incorrect. The field is moving so fast right now, with new features being added (with their own hardware requirements), that next year's autonomous feature will not work with this year's model. Tesla's self-driving (whatever they are calling it) on the highway, self-parking, etc. are not backwards compatible. that will happen repeatedly over the next decade or so.
I don't know why this is only relevant to electric vehicles though.
(** Hell, if I really wanted to nitpick, I could point out that the definition requires planets orbit the sun. Jupiter orbits the Sun-Jupiter barycentre, which is not inside the sun. You can say "close enough", but where do you draw the cutoff line?)
Wait...what? I had no idea. My intuition has always been that the Sun is so massive compared to the planets that of course the barycenter was inside the sun. But, the sun being "only" 1000 times as massive as Jupiter means that the barycenter is about 1/1000 of the way between their center of masses, which puts it just outside the sun.
No, the US economy is, by most measures, doing fairly well. GDP growth is positive, but low; inflation is almost non-existent; unemployment is low, but not so low to cause a lot of inflation; consumer confidence is pretty good. On the negative side, labor participation rates are low, median wages are flat, and our current account deficit is high. On total, decent, not great.
I think a very good case could be made for the wall...and for Mexico paying for it.
Ugh...your post supported the idea of a wall. What it completely failed to do was: 1) solve the physical impossibility of actually building it; 2) solve the political impossibility of having Mexico pay for it. You might as well say that a very good case could be made for transforming the entire economy to run on ethanol and make the oil companies pay for it. Well, sure, except that the math doesn't work and you can't force someone to pay for something that you have no control over.
No, not typical.
One of the problems with political discourse is that the expectations are so low that Trump can literally say anything and there will people who say 'Politician X says stuff too' or 'They all do it'. However, Trump is different. He is isn't even bothering to try to couch his words in standard dog-whistle terms or not directly insulting massive parts of the electorate. The things he has said about specific women, about physically handicapped people, about particular racial and religious groups are far beyond anything we have seen for a national politician. It has significantly lowered the bar in terms of acceptable behaviour; and you're not helping by being an apologist for him by calling him typical.
P.s.what happens if I post GPL code?
I don't think that this is just a P.S. This highlights the crux of the (legal) issue. SO is saying that code posted on their web site is under a particular license, which implies that they have the right to do so.
If I get code off SO and it later turns out to be GPL or proprietary, and I get sued, it means that I get to point to SO and say 'sue them, they gave me a license'.
The Sahara has some benefits (right weather, low cost land), but probably has more costs than make it worthwhile. As the article says, there are significant political issues. They will require huge bribes, either directly to the politicians involved or to organizations that 'represent the people' (that don't really). When someone says that Africa must have a large share of the benefits, you know that means that lots of people need to be paid off.
Sadly, it makes more sense to do it someplace with a better political system, better technical infrastructure, and closer to where the power will be used. The overall cost will turn out to be lower.
Yes, and I'm guessing this is all sour grapes.
Google doesn't do military applications. They bought Boston Dynamics and have told the military that they are not going to do any more military research. So, the military said, 'Well, we don't want it anyway, because it's too loud'. That gets Boston Dynamics out of the business and lets the Marines save face.
"Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." -- The Tao of Programming