The new stuff is under copyright.

Not only will the government have future legal complications because of it, many of the corporations that have abandoned their DEI policies fail to consider that they originally instituted them as part of lawsuit settlements, and that cancelling their policies will likely result in the same institutional racism that led to the earlier lawsuits.

Except now they've done it on purpose, knowing that the earlier harms would return, and the lawsuits will be bigger.

Yeah why didn't they give them wings or gigantic brains or forehead lasers or something useful???

Are you sure you're really this stupid? Seems performative.

Don't just wave your hands, what enforcement mechanism are you talking about?

The idea to "end hunger" would require massive military action to take over all the places that have hunger and creating dictators who were in line with your goals and would forcefully overcome obstacles to food distribution.

People are really dumb. People often think that just buying enough food for everybody to eat would somehow cause everybody to be able to eat. But insufficient food production is not the main cause. And if there were no other obstacles to hunger, the cheapest food, the oldest food, the lowest quality food would already be flowing to those people, and we wouldn't need to talk about ending hunger, we'd only be talking about improving nutrition. The vast majority of hunger is caused by their local governance, be that their official government or gangs, militants, etc. that are actually participating in local governance.

You commented without first finding your glasses so you could read the comment chain, grandpa.

In addition, the part of that money spent on computer centers will be useful even if AI doesn't pan out. It's not like investing in tulip bulbs. If AI doesn't pan out, it will just take a few years longer to pay for itself.

That said, AI will pan out. Even if there's no further development (HAH!) the current AIs will find an immense number of uses. It may well be "growing too fast", but that's not the same as worthless. (But expect well over half of the AI projects that are adopted in the next few years to fail. People don't yet understand the strengths and weaknesses. Unless, of course, AGI is actually developed. Then all bets are off because we REALLY don't understand what that woud result in.)

It's going to take more than one more efficient algorithm. OTOH, there've already been improvements in more than one algorithm. Nobody knows how far that could go, but the best evidence is that it could get a LOT more efficient. (Consider the power usage of a human brain...it uses a lot of power for an organ, but not really all that much.)

I'm guessing this is a summary:
Banks are legally allowed to loan more money than they have in deposits...to a degree. They've occasionally been found to go well beyond that limit. And they aren't carefully audited often enough.

Whether that's an accurate summary or not, it's true, if a bit shy on details. (I don't know the details this decade. But there probably haven't been any basic changes in the last few decades.)

They have one of these at the safeway in my town that is near the University.

There is a gate, and a receipt scanner, but it only blocks half the exit; you can still just walk past it. But the sign does say to scan receipt to exit. You'd have to be an exceptionally compliant person to feel trapped.

I use the pharmacy in the back of the store, and I never scan my receipt before exiting. I would refuse if they asked me to. But they wouldn't.

But it wouldn't be kidnapping, it would be false imprisonment.

What the ... "proper adjustments" ??? So I guess Polynesians are no heavier than Sri Lankans once you adjust for waist size?
What a bizzare abuse of logic to suggest these are independent measurements.

Absolutely! History does give her credit, and as I said, she might have received a Nobel prize has she lived long enough.
But the claim that the discovery was "stolen" from Franklin is unfounded.

Support yes, prove no.
You could say that about the double helix. Nobel prizes are typically awarded many years after the event because they are awarded for ideas, and have to wait for others to prove them. You don't get a Nobel by waiting for proof.
      Watson took some well-founded observations on racial and gender differences, (some observations more scientific than others), and sided heavily on genetics in the nature vs nurture debate.

Consider in the US how Jews have made massively disproportionate contributions to science and creative arts. How much of the reason for that is cultural vs genetic? I don't know, but I'm not shocked that a geneticist said it has a strong genetic component.

I mean Watson, dammit!