The summary implies a very bad wording of the measure. Any requirement that "no AI be used" fails, because you can't tell whether it happened or not.

"Houses" probably predate homo sapiens. They my just have looked like lean-tos, but they did the same job, just not as well. And if you demand mortared foundations, they didn't show up until the very late stone age.

The thing is, when you're mobile rather than settled, a house is a very temporary asset. And they have defects as places that house lice, fleas, etc. So you usually prefer to keep moving. Agriculture is what probably caused what we think of as houses to be created, but the first "permanent" houses were probably organic developments of the pre-existing "temporary shelters".

P.S.: Look into the construction techniques used by Chimps and Orangutans. These are called "nests", but they aren't trivial constructions, and as they're in the trees, their requirements are different from ground based constructions.

Being pro-Iran is, indeed, as silly as being pro-Israel. There's not much moral justification for either. Once upon a time there was a bit of economic justification, but as governments have changed that has mainly evaporated.

If you think they just track license plates you haven't been paying attention.

There are definitely use cases for which it isn't needed. But that doesn't cover everything. There will ALWAYS be use cases that would require (or at least benefit from) higher connection bandwidth...and speed can often substitute nicely.

Well, the only better advice is "Don't put your master copy on the internet" and "Always have backups that you've checked".

That's clearly wrong, as there currently exist (very niche) applications for entanglement. I have strong doubts as to it's wide application, as the conditions for keeping it extant are so severe, but few and niche applications isn't the same as unimportant.

FWIW, ISTM that this might have application to quantum key exchange, I just don't know enough to say yes or no.

I believe it's not just a stunt, even if it doesn't imply what a lot of people seem to believe. (OTOH, I don't really know enough to *assert* that it's not just a stunt. I just see no reason to believe that, and decent reasons to doubt it.)

I'm sure that technically they said something like "The man may be a shoplifter", and thus were correct in that sense. But using a system that does that at that error rate is NOT reasonable. This is like the automated driving systems that require a human driver to take over within 2 seconds. NOT a good idea.

Well, yes. But they didn't actually know that that was what the design implied.

Tests have shown a lot of AI actions that weren't expected ahead of time, but in retrospect should have been obvious.

This requires that you believe they're being honest, with no backing evidence. I can see possible evidence of consistency, but that's a much weaker claim.

If they were lies, then I agree with down-ranking them.
If they were just opinions, then I only agree with avoiding them.

OTOH, I don't use X/Twitter. Slashdot is as close as I come to social media.

I think I heard this story last year, or perhaps a few years ago. I've no reason to think it was the same plant, though.

We're also discovering unceasingly dim objects that are closer. They just don't get the same news coverage. But I'm more interested in wandering planets and planetoids (and even Oort belt objects).

Perhaps the answer is that the "Big Bang" wasn't the first, and these black holes are left over from a prior "universe". In that case, though, why are they so close together.