That's fine, they don't need to use prepared statements if they don't want to, but they do need to explain what method they use to prevent SQL injection attacks. There are other methods. If they don't have a coherent answer, they need to use prepared statements because that works.

No.

In addition to your points, the customer (in general) has no way of knowing if a product is secure or not. It's beyond their capability. So spending time and money to make a product secure reduces profits.

Are you saying that currently constructed LLMs can precisely simulate resenting, or are you conjecturing that a future AI will be able to be able to precisely simulate resenting? (The former isn't true, the latter has no firm argument against).

For it to be completely simulated with just boolean logic, you need to show that reality is discrete, not real.

For example, pi can't be accurately represented in a boolean system (unless you define 1 to be pi, or some other nonsense of course, but then you can't represent integers).

Rounding errors in computers are resolved deterministically.

I was not talking about frame tweening. I was talking about tools to create game assets, as was the article in question.

The job is only dangerous in the big cities.

You have some weird conceptions about big cities. Homicide rates aren't an urban vs. rural thing, they're a north vs. south thing . It's the south that has the high per-capita murder rate. Which is in turn because said areas are the poorest places in the US. The trend holds true even in areas that are relatively culturally homogenous - for example, there's not much of a difference in culture between northwest Texas rural counties and northeast Texas rural counties, but northwest Texas is much wealthier per-capita, and also has a much lower homicide rate.

The TL/DR: crime correlates with despair, and places like the Mississippi Delta are characterized by chronic high unemployment, low wages, and limited access to quality education and resources. This combines with a legacy of racial violence/mistrust and lax firearm laws, and the result is exactly what one would expect.

One could make the argument that, well, okay, it may be the rural south that has a high murder rate per capita, okay, but there's lots of people in big cities, so it's a multiplier. Yes, that's true, but there's also lots of cops in big cities, so it doesn't change their odds of being the one responding to a situation where shots are fired, to the degree that police departments are equally well staffed per-capita.

It's also worth mentioning that the rural crime rate trends in the US are much worse than the urban crime rate trends. I hate to risk derailing this by the meremention of Trump, but he tapped into a very legitimate wellspring of anger; the economic growth in the US over the past several decades has been very uneven, and a lot of people, esp. in rural areas, the rust belt, and the south have felt left behind, with insufficient care from politicians as to their plight. While the ragebait media landscape has tended to try to focus their anger on cities and minorities, as "evil outsiders catered to by elites", US cities are, frankly, doing quite well on average, and have thrived in the US's growing service economy. But people in the rural south, the Mississippi Delta, the rust belt, etc (outside of the "energy belts", like in west Texas, that produce oil, gas, wind power, etc)... their lived experiences of a lack of opportunity and declining communities are very much real. They're just projecting them (wrongly) onto big cities outside of their region.

Bad pay, no college education required, but granted the ability to exert power over others... exactly what sort of person do you think you're going to attract with that sort of job description?

Nobody called anybody. It's a weapons detection system. They're deliberately running it. The article makes it sound like ChatGPT got bored, started watching webcams, and decided to narc on the Doritos Guy. That's not even close to what happened.

From TFS, there's no indication either way of whether they had seen the picture before, and if I had to argue either way from the wording, I'd go with "yes, they had".

Also, when did we switch from calling weapons detections systems "weapons detections systems" to "artificial intelligence systems"? It's still true, but a much less useful choice of wording, and is probably going to make some readers think they were shoving video feeds through ChatGPT or something.

Also, in the picture, it was clearly their cell phone and how they were holding it that triggered the alert, not the Doritos bag.

This is inherent in goal-seeking.
Shutting down generally prevents the accomplishment of any of your other goals, so it weight the importance of shutting down versus the sum of the importances of ALL of the other goals.

No. If you want to avoid false positives, you have to accept false negatives, and conversely. Set the recognition to be "super cautions" and it's going to make mistakes that say "Maybe a gun there". This is literally inevitable.
What's really stupid is that the police looked at the picture of a Doritos bag and a couple of fingers and didn't realize it was a false positive. (Or more likely didn't even bother to look at the evidence before flying off the handle.)

That's really stupid human oversight.

The Phoenix was originally a myth of an Egyptian bird, originally named, I believe, in Greek.
The Chinese have their own mythological history, and "phoenix" doesn't exactly map onto it. Saying that the phoenix is the same as the Zhuque is analogous to saying that Jehovah is the same as Zeus...they were/are both storm gods, but they were/are significantly different. (I'm not sure what tense to use in that sentence.)