If they end up somehow building strong AI, then the investment will pay off in huge multiples and will absolutely be worth it.

If they don't manage to create strong AI, but manage to create a better search engine that somehow replaces Google, then it will be worth the investment (for comparison, Google profit is on the order of $100 billion per year).

There are a lot of other potential products that could bring heavy revenue, even without strong AI. AirBnB has $2billion a year in net profit, which isn't great but it's conceivable that even with the current crappy AI product, OpenAI could make a reasonable amount of revenue. With billions of potential customers, they don't need to make a lot of money off each person.

Remind me again, which refugee crisis did Europe clean up?

It's far from indisputable. Indeed, it's hotly disputed within the aviation industry. That does NOT mean that it was a short-circuit (although that is a theory that is under investigation), it merely means that "indisputable" is not the correct term to use here. You can argue probabilities or reasonableness, but you CANNOT argue "indisputable" when specialists in the field in question say that it is, in fact, disputed.

If you were to argue that the most probable cause was manual, then I think I could accept that. If you were to argue that Occam's Razor required that this be considered H0 and therefore a theory that must be falsified before others are considered, I'd not be quite so comfortable but would accept that you've got to have some sort of rigorous methodology and that's probably the sensible one.

But "indisputable"? No, we are not at that stage yet. We might reach that stage, but we're not there yet.

Just to clarify:

Defending that stupidity is more a you problem. And if you want to know my “technical” complaint, somewhere behind a 20-million cell spreadsheet is someone actually trying to excuse broken default behavior in Excel under the guise of user error. When errors are not the fault of the user, what then is the always-acceptable excuse for the financial messiah?

Part of the acceptable inaccuracy I speak of is the absolute blind adulation for Excel in business. If that program was found to be broken severely and proven quite inaccurate in a future update, no business would ban the use of Excel. Not one. They all sit around waiting for a fix to their fix.

Blind adulation, is blind for obvious reasons. None of which are good.

Uh, that’s a nuclear reactor on a planet that has no protective atmosphere. When you say “minimizing risks”, just be prepared for a lot of laughter from an audience who likely knows better. The idea of any of that being anything but high risk, is a joke.

We will grasp this concept well when the first Martian meteor shower shows the human race the value of atmospheres.

Hint: if someone blames everything bad on Netenyahu, they are ignorant.

Netenyahu's approach lost the support of the Israeli voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Netenyahu's successor was willing to make a ton of concessions for peace: https://www.youtube.com/shorts...

German Euro bonds are cheaper than US bonds, so you better rethink your economic theory (and stop watching youtube).

That is not clear at all. Russia keeps threatening to nuke UK because they don't ignore European opinion.

Here is how the researchers themselves say it:

Don't conflate the arrogant headline with knowledgeable researchers.

That was sad. It didn't change things. The peace process went forward, and Palestine rejected the two state deal.

On the flip side, I have enjoyed the few Canadian shows that made it to the U.S. (especially during the writer's strike).

You have remarkably strong opinions on a topic you know very little about.

Hard to say, but rember that it was because of similar laws in Canada that we got The Great White North with Bob and Doug McKinzie.

https://www.politico.eu/articl...

I don't know enough about Dutch law to say much more than that, but I'm sure they had lawyers work it out.