Here's one reference, though not the orginal one I read.
https://academic.oup.com/ismej...

Note that this is not DIRECTLY eating radiation, but that's still its energy source, as that's where the H molecule comes from. So to simplify, saying it eats radiation is not wrong.

The degree isn't about "getting a high-paid job", it's about knowing what the hell you're doing once you get a job. Although, fair enough, it's quite plausible that not many degrees would meet that standard either.

There is a possibility of a short-circuit causing an engine shutdown. Apparently, there is a known fault whereby a short can result in the FADEC "fail-safing" to engine shutdown, and this is one of the competing theories as the wiring apparently runs near a number of points in the aircraft with water (which is a really odd design choice).

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that (a) the wiring actually runs there (the wiring block diagrams are easy to find, but block diagrams don't show actual wiring paths), (b) that there is anything to indicate that water could reach such wiring in a way that could cause a short, or (c) that it actually did so. I don't have that kind of information.

All I can tell you, at this point, is that aviation experts are saying that a short at such a location would cause an engine shutdown and that Boeing was aware of this risk.

I will leave it to the experts to debate why they're using electrical signalling (it's slower than fibre, heavier than fibre, can corrode, and can short) and whether the FADEC fail-safes are all that safe or just plain stupid. For a start, they get paid to shout at each other, and they actually know what specifics to shout at each other about.

But, if the claims are remotely accurate, then there were a number of well-known flaws in the design and I'm sure Boeing will just love to answer questions on why these weren't addressed. The problem being, of course, is that none of us know which of said claims are indeed remotely accurate, and that makes it easy for air crash investigators to go easy on manufacturers.

It's quite plausible that it eats radiation. There are bacteria that live inside rocks and eat radiation. That it would be a shield is, however, very implausible.

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.

But if they talk, should you believe them. People say all sorts of things. You can't really trust strangers whose motives you can only guess at. Perhaps they're about to be fired, so they want to damage the company.

For that matter, if someone said a game was NOT made with AI, I wouldn't believe them. They only know part of what was being done, so even if they're intending to be honest they can't be believed.

I think he was probably correct when he asserted "AI will be a part of the way all games are made".

It's not slop everywhere else, just in many places. AIs that have been custom trained for a particular situation can often do quite well. This work particularly well in classification, but also works in several other areas.

The main criteria at the moment is "so you have an easy way to check correctness?". If you do, then AI can, when properly trained and configured, do a good job.

This is supposed to be for NON-emergency calls. Not comparable to 911.

No. It can't be properly expressive without understanding the story that it's reading. Punctuation is just not enough, it doesn't capture many different shades of meaning. E.g., an ironic statement should be read in a different tone than a factual statement, even with exactly the same punctuation. (That's one example out of MANY. Consider, e.g., the scene in "Alice in Wonderland" where she's talking about jumping off the top of the house.)

Well, I *do* want an "AI PC", but not anything currently on the market. I want one that will understand books in HTML format and read them to me in a reasonably expressive tone. I'd also like it to be able to pause and then answer questions about what was going on earlier if I missed a point.
OTOH, I'd also want it to be strictly segregated from most of what I do.

That's the way the internet works on land these days, over any distance. Your multiple carriers all turn out to depend on the same infrastructure.

I don't think you understand the process of science. That is the appropriate reaction to any initial claim. An initial observation needs to be repeated by others, and the data that justified the initial claim should be reanalyzed by others to see if they agree with the interpretation. Then arguments ensue. Eventually people "pretty much" come to an agreement.

Sometimes the arguments last for decades.

It also suggests that as time goes by, dark matter will decay into normal matter (photons). Rather slowly, however.

Apparently you'll need to be able to see gamma rays to be able to see it.