Learn to Code wasn't really about learning to code. If you talk about the efforts related to young students, it was too much about pushing coding careers that weren't reasonable matches for everyone; if you're referring to the general advice to future workers going to school, it created a lot of low-skill coders who also weren't actually suited for the occupation.

Learn to AI is bullshit for a whole ton of reasons, but primary among them are 1) you're training what they want to replace you with and 2) if you don't actually know the subject, you can't figure out when AI is bullshitting you. Both of them make leaning on the computer inferior to learning on the computer. If you don't learn to code, you can't learn to AI code.

You are talking past yourself. Nowhere did I say that not doing due diligence excuses fraud.

Maybe you should read what the judge wrote instead of promoting enablement, because I'm saying the same thing they did. I know reading is hard, especially while you're stroking your own ego, but try.

It doesn't matter if signals are cluttered. You send out the pings with a signal. You only act on reflections with a matching signal.

Sure, we can see them posting to slashdot.

Well, that's just false. Not the first part of course, but the second part. They didn't claim new jobs would never emerge. They claimed that the profits would flow upwards and make The People poorer while the rich got richer. They have been right for the last two centuries... so far.

Waymo's hits and drags pedestrians and Tesla's misinterprets the sides of trailers as the sky, turns itself off at the last second to preserve its statistics, and drives under them. Is that functioning as designed?

Yes, sometimes they are parked. At other times, they move. That you haven't seen them moving doesn't prove that they do not move. Things happen even when you are not looking.

In CA we have trucks with (specifically) the Scorpion® TMA Truck Mounted Attenuator. Sometimes they are parked, but most of the time when I see them they are slowly following another vehicle.

If you cannot figure this out by reading the summary, which makes it obvious, you should try learning to read.

If you cannot be bothered to read the whole summary, you have a lot of company here, but your attention span is still post-millennial and you should go back to TikTok.

The context is work so it's not acceptable to half-ass it.

Everything you do, and every dollar you make, is predicated upon the existence of our nation and its government. You want to pay nothing to maintain the system upon which you depend for every penny of profit. This is a wholly immature, unrealistic, and unsustainable attitude.

"I would imagine that sales of the cutting edge parts are a tiny niche catering to enthusiasts and tech companies"

You seem to have a basic lack of understanding about processor technology. Don't feel too bad, I have seen several other comments in this thread where they make the same mistake.

Nobody wants to sell chips made on an old process for multiple reasons. Not only performance and power efficiency, which matters a whole lot since laptops have proliferated, but also because you get more chips per wafer. Unless of course you are Intel, because both their last process and their current process have poor yields.

Nobody wants to make any CPUs on inferior processes.

Instead of stupid gull wing doors someone should do a vehicle with front and rear left and right side sliding doors. It would be a good match for a skateboard design.

It is this only because they won't eliminate the contribution cap. That would keep it funded for decades and give us plenty of time to come up with something better.

You're supposed to raise your kids to want to take care of you. Sounds like you either got different treatment, or tolerate more abuse.

I've had to figure it out on my own for the most part anyway because my parents were so terrible at parenting. My father did teach me one valuable lesson, pay attention, but as he frequently did it with his hand I didn't grow up with a lot of affection for him.

"But I find it laughable to argue the federal government or any government is efficient."

Well, you're wrong. Medicare is more efficient than insurance companies, since it's not trying to make a profit for shareholders happy to profit from suffering.

"So next I would hope for traditional "safety nets" of family and community to kick in."

Why do you want the least efficient option? You hate things that make sense?