The situation was worse than I thought. According to the AAIB report, they tested the material and found the glass transition temperature to be about 53C, so the jackass printed it in PLA.

Also, since it's Poly Lactic Acid, our metabolism is already well equipped to deal with the breakdown product.

It's great for things that will be indoors at room temperature. I made a snap-on camera mount for my monitor that has held up great. But if it was a dash mount, it would need to be PETG or CF-PA6 to not sag in the summer.

In general, bus stops are designed for the students to exit on the non-street side. The issue is kids who have to cross the street to get home since a stop serves multiple homes on both sides of a street. Retracing the route would double the bus transit time for some kids, who likely just get off the bus at the first stop and not theirs if the bus retraced the route so they could get off on their side of the street.

Getting their jobs sent to American AI won't be noticeably better for American workers than getting their jobs sent to Chinese AIs.

According to an AAIB Field Investigation report (pg. 4), two samples from the intake were tested and found to have a glass transition temperature of 54.0C and 52.8C

So some idiot printed them in PLA. PLA is great but is very much NOT temperature resistant. It has been known to sag in a hot car.

Now look at the ratio of human driven cars vs. Waymo cars.

The problem was using a cheap substitute part. I'm guessing an injection molded ABS part would also have failed in that scenario.

CF-ABS is NOT like fiberglass at all. The CF is chopped into fine bits. They lend some stiffness at room temperature but not strength to the part. Certainly the carbon fiber bits don't lend any heat resistance.

That's why I suggest a mitigation to the increases for industry based on local employment. Data centers employ very few people per-Killowatt and so contribute a lot less to the local economy compared to those other industries.

It would make sense in conjunction with an employment based mitigation. Data centers employ very few people once operational (they're not called lights-out facilities for nothing), so no mitigation. Major manufacturer provides many steady jobs, more mitigation for them.

Of course, things get complicated. There are mini data centers being set up in people's back yards where the waste heat warms the home owners house. That doesn't employ a lot of people but gets effectively double use of the energy for at least a good part of the year, offsetting other energy use, so it should see some form of mitigation as well.

The bigger question though is how long until the data centers are abandoned? The big AI companies and their investors are operating at a loss as they jocky for market share and train ever larger models. But will people actually find the AI useful enough to pay for it once the investors start demanding their ROI? Will managers come to realize that they might be better off hiring people suffering schizophrenia with frequent psychotic episodes?

End to end encryption, for a toilet? Frankny I do not want a TOILET to connect me "end-to-end" with anybody. They're doing it wrong.

Time to pull up the sheet on IOT. Not only has it gone up it's own backside, now it's trying to go up ours too.

How about "hit", the most common word used to express the concept.

I'm not so sure there have even been enough incidents to decide if Waymos are more or less likely to run over an animal, but I *STRENUOUSLY* object to trying to soften it with 'made contact with' in the press release.

They're politicians, so adding in funding illegal activities is redundant.

I suspect most of those speculative hobbyists aren't simply giving up a percentage of their holdings to use a fun toy; if you're speculating why give up a % of your return when you get no value from it? As for PGP and its ilk, there are probably a lot more legitimate users, which is why law enforcement used other means, such a taking over services clandestinely to be able to track organized crime; just like wiretaps allowed targeting suspected criminals without eliminating telephones. That's not to say governments aren't trying to get backdoors, and while I disagree with that approach, it's still allows targeting suspects without eliminating encryption. Of course, you have to rely on governments to play fair, something "for the children" arguments make the effort suspect and open to fishing expeditions.

Personally, I think taking it over surreptitiously would be a better move because then you can see and track both ends of the transaction; something they may have done but wouldn't admit to until they have some strong cases. They may have done that and after they had what they needed decided to shut it down. Who knows, I certainly don't.