You mean unlike the US pharma price-gouging, where people pay 20x as much as they do for basically the same product with the same safety in other places? Let's hope so. Americans may find out that most things can actually be treated without sending you into medical bankruptcy.

Indeed. Profit-driven is not enough.

Like hat has never happened before and nobody could anticipate that....
Japanese cameras and then electronics for one close example. Or look up where "Made in Germany" came from.

Sue Taco Bell!

But it's not "in tact" - it's "intact".

An original work is an original work. Every work is influenced somehow. Foisting AI as your own humanity is your own death. I'll die another way.

You certainly wouldn't want a taxpayer-funded "cybercrime" unit to prioritize pursuing ransomware gangs, malware writers, or email scammers and phishers!

Thank heavens the world is a little safer with these TV pirates finally behind bars.

While it's true that the value of content is driven down by the signal to noise ratio, AI being noise, the fact that AI can't be copyrighted is an important distinction. Only humans can copyright, a court-tested fact.

Does that fact increase the quality of content? No. What it does mean is that humans can monetize their works and eat; AI can make content and sell you ads or influence you to buy something.

This reduces to a question: Do you want to feed humans or the AI muck? The choice is yours. Some humans probably don't deserve the feeding; the AIs are driving up all of your costs, from the power grid energy bills to the new AI trappings being foisted on you during your tech experience. You decide.

Or not. Kind of like a drug-dealer that prints warnings on their product...

Western pharmaceutical companies have gotten fat and lazy and do not take the risk of doing R&D anymore, with rare exceptions. If China kicks their collective behinds, all the better.

AFAIK, nobody has demonstrated a viable SMR prototype of any kind. No, marine reactors do not count, they have the wrong characteristics and are far too uneconomic for this, even worse than civilian designs. The two that exist (Russian and Chinese) do NOT come with any or any believable cost figures. In addition, the he Russian one is a military design and the Chinese one is a highly experimental pebble-bed reactor based on German patents. The Germans wrecked three of these and two are still highly radioactive ruins that nobody know how to dispose of. On the plus-side, pebble-bed reactors cannot melt down, which is a decided plus.

Still, anybody that has high confidence in the approach is simply an idiot.

They are NOT going to make it. And then the whole bubble will burst.

SMART tests are not really defined. But reading a cell should automatically trigger a refresh if the read was weak or did require ECC. This is not a visible "write", more like housekeeping.

Good luck with that. The occasional hallucination will kill that dumb idea.

I am still using a 13 Pro Max, so you're not alone.

This whole "buy a new expensive phone every year or two" mentality has always bugged me. Yes, "battery life is better" on a new phone versus a not-new phone... but the question SHOULD be "is the battery life on that not-new phone actually an issue?". And yes, the cameras on a new phone are probably better, but is there an actual practical difference the end user will actually see?

A lot of those arguments seem to be post hoc justifications for a purchase decision that was already made.