I'm not understanding why you thought that was a reasonable reply to my comment.

Until they are infallible, yes.

Life is chock-full of "should haves", alas. Instead of each new project being better than the ones before, many people and organizations seem to think they know everything when they should have learned from others. I'm quite sure someone else had figured this out already.

If they have access to social media they might find out that the Pope protected a sex pest before he even became pope. I believe that's actually a requirement, though...

I'm not reading the code rn but I would assume the volume is mandated. It's got to be over a certain level to be considered audible to people with hearing disabilities. We had one on our RV as it used to be a bus, I disabled it. I will probably put it on a switch at some point though

On one hand you're right, on the other hand, unmet need is unsustainable

No, what's fucking stupid is that Microsoft clearly has no meaningful automated testing for these patches before they send them to "Insiders".

What's almost as stupid is defending their incompetence for free.

Laws which require backup noises apply to vehicles where there is no person operating the vehicle who can reasonably see behind them. That's why they are on trucks and buses. They also only apply to commercial motor vehicles, which these are.

The charging stations shouldn't be located in these places, and they should also be designed for pull-throughs. Even if there weren't a noise issue (which there won't be if they aren't installed in dumb locations) there still would be other reasons to do it.

It does, but these people don't work on sense. The idea that we live in a meritocracy is a deluded one. They are not at the top of the financial ziggurat because of merit, but because of a lack of it — they will do anything to anyone any time for money.

How have you gone this long without ever once hearing of Rome?

There is no pro to doing it within the atmosphere.

We could potentially put something at L1 to reflect sunlight. An "angular soletta" was proposed in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. In that case it was for the purpose of increasing insolation on Mars, but the same nonexistent technology could in theory apply to reducing it on Earth. The idea was nested truncated cones of flexible, reflective material. Altering the angles of the cones would allow redirecting sunlight.

In a way this is a worse plan than solar power satellites because it actually could be used as a weapon. Solar power satellites can simply have fixed focus, and be defocused so that they cover an area instead of targeting a point, and then they cannot be used as weapons at all. The same does not apply to this idea. You could focus it and burn up cities. But it also doesn't involve putting crap into the atmosphere.

Stephenson writes books for advanced readers. Those who read quickly will enjoy them more.

Good eye, this is not The Real World. It's the made-up world of finance.

However, it makes sense to pay them well. You have to pay these people a lot or they will steal from you.

What a shit take, huh?

That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.

No part of that was a lie.

If you disagree, post a citation instead of modding me down with a sock puppet account.