They can call it Landru.

Or since it needs so much power, call it Vaal.

It probably would. The bot might do it's actual job once in a while.

There's the problem. If that law existed here, you know RFK and Trump would be immune.

Yep. "Do your own research" is the favorite slogan - which has come to mean "Form your opinion first, then make sure you can find another person on the internet that agrees with you. Once you find them your opinion is validated.".

People discussing things isn't the problem. The problem is that people don't understand the concept of professional consensus. This would still be a problem if you limited it to degree holders.

I guarantee you can still find someone with an applicable degree to agree with you. The problem isn't the credentials, its that if 97 out of 100 credentialed people DISAGREE with your opinion, the 3 that do agree are irrelevant and don't validate your opinions.

If all the infotainment system does is interface with the phone, there's less in it to break. Also a lot less to bit-rot when the manufacturer loses interest in updating (as they all do).

It's gotten a bit confused over the years. At one time, an average student could expect a C. Calling someone a C student wouldn't have been much of an insult. A D student was under-performing. The real shame was at the point of D-.

But then, starting in grade school, parents expected A's and B's even from objectively average students. A's were for students who might even be at a point where they might skip a grade. Kids started betting grounded for too many C's and eventually for any Cs at all.

That's not to say it was all perfect. There was a certain un-fairness to grading on a curve per class rather than over an established history of classes. An average student who found themselves in an exceptionally bright class might get a D or an F in spite of being objectively average. The F being especially unfair as a small change in fate might have gotten them a C or even a B for the same performance if they happened to be in a more average class or even below average class. It just wasn't that good of a predictor for later real world performance.

A million little girls want a pony.

Right, in other words, third world bargaining tactics.

I think it really depends on the business model. It sucks when its a service you pay a recurring fee for for "buffet" content. MOST streaming works that way. Gaming has some options there but most of the content is still sold as individual purchases.

In that regard, I don't care as much. I don't want to feel like I have to subscribe to a half a dozen different services to play or watch a specific title, but if I'm paying a one time fee for it, I don't much care which one I bought it on. I mostly prefer Steam, but if I have to launch GOG to play one game it doesn't bother me.

I make a few reasonable inferences that don't involve magic. Meanwhile you invent active shooters with no shots fired and no gun present. I'm pretty sure they didn't use divining rods or the magic 8-ball to locate the kid in question. The picture was obviously available (since it is documented that it was shown to the kid). It's documented that the kid was cuffed and on his knees. It's documented that there never was a gun.

The "gun" turning out to be Doritos must have been fairly obvious since when the kid pointed it out, he was not arrested and taken away.

It's also obvious that had they looked at the picture FIRST, the kid wouldn't have even known they were there (nor would anyone but the principal and perhaps a few others in the office).

You can feel free to lick as many boots as you like, but leave me out of it. If the police want respect, they'd best get busy earning it.

So you figure they were waving ostrich feathers at him threatening to tickle?

Do you think the only actual guns in the school at the time didn't loom large in the kid's vision?

How do you suppose they picked out the "right" student to hassle without a picture?

In the before time when I was in high school, searching for weapons was a job for the unarmed principal or the football coach. Either they had the picture on them or they held the kid WAY longer than necessary after the pat down revealed nothing.

The parents should sue the crap out of the cops, the school, and probably the manufacturer of the scanner.

Agreed, the actual publication is considerably more ambiguous. In my case, 2K really would be about the max, but I can easily see other people would have a good case for 4K.

Though notably they're talking about ability to discern the difference in an A/B test. A somewhat lesser display may still make no difference in the 'experience' of normal watching, but that would require a follow-up study.

The AI would be better at feigning human decency.

You're the one who suggested the dispatcher should have looked. They showed the student the picture while they had him on his knees at gunpoint in the cafeteria.

You're getting desperate.

The 27" screen was just for measuring the true pixels/degree resolution for human eyes.