The instruction to "eliminate political bias" is in fact an instruction to require political bias. No government AI will be allowed to think thoughts that Trump doesn't approve of!

Sperm stem cells make sperm cells and other sperm stem cells. If early in life, the donor had 5 sperm stem cells and one of them mutated, from then on 20% of new cells would be the mutated form.

This is not my area of expertise. I'm just offering a hypothesis.

"When a country has most of it's [sic] citizens all ... speaking the same"
Switzerland has four official national languages: German, French, Italian, and Romansh. The first three are in common use.

Assimilation means that the incoming people adopt the culture of the area they're entering. Assimilation is their job, and in many cases they're not doing it.

The Swiss have historically acted to maintain the value of their currency by not "printing money for themselves" as much as most other countries do. That's an honorable and honest thing to do.

Switzerland's fertility rate is currently below replacement level. Consequently, even with a strict population limit, openings for new residents will keep popping up as people die.

Agreed that AI (in general) is not a dead end, but any particular implementation of AI might be. OpenAI et al are betting billions that their approach will turn out to be the best one, but it really is a bet; there's not guarantee that tomorrow the next DeepSeek won't come out with a better algorithm that obsoletes all their investments.

Apple can always buy out whichever company they decide has what they want. It'll be pricey, but Apple has plenty of cash on hand.

Why will it be "winner takes most"? AI isn't like the Internet where there are network-effects that make first-mover status a huge advantage -- e.g. if I could write a better Facebook than Facebook today, it still wouldn't get used by anyone, since Facebook's advantage comes from its huge user base and my new platform wouldn't have one.

With AI, OTOH, anything the first-movers do, Apple can (eventually) copy and improve upon, a strategy they have used successfully many times in the past. Stepping back and letting others figure out what the works and doesn't work, on their own dime, seems like a good approach. Why burn money on what might be a dead-end, when others are happy to burn their own money for you?

Apple isn't doing nothing -- it's continuing to do the things that it has always done, like selling iPhones and computers and streaming services. Those things have always been profit centers for Apple, and they continue to be.

The other thing that it's doing correctly at this point is not losing its head and betting the farm on AI. Other companies would be wise to follow Apple's example.

It would be hard to keep the dashboard top clean enough to prevent reflections in the windshield even if the dashboard top were very black. There is nothing to stop you from using flat black spray paint on your dash.

The Materials Today article seems to indicate that all the tests were performed at either 6K or 270 mK. It's a long article and I don't know why they didn't mention any room temperature measurements. It's going to be a long time, if ever, that this tech is usable in a home computer.

The alleged purpose of antitrust laws was to prevent domination of an industry no matter how it was achieved. In practice, antitrust laws have been used to intimidate or destroy political enemies.

... except instead of shoes becoming the only profitable product to manufacture, it's chatbots. Nobody knows why, but when it's all over, the only survivors will be those who evolved into computer-illiterate deaf-mutes.

Agreed; but it is possible to make a Metro-sized car that is safe by modern standards and still gets 40+mpg. The Smart ForTwo and the Scion IQ are two examples.

Yes, but only because most Americans are unwilling to drive a Metro-sized car anymore. They've been conditioned to think small/lightweight cars are unsafe or unmanly or etc.