Anthropomorphizing AI leads to junk science.

No. If you want to avoid false positives, you have to accept false negatives, and conversely. Set the recognition to be "super cautions" and it's going to make mistakes that say "Maybe a gun there". This is literally inevitable.
What's really stupid is that the police looked at the picture of a Doritos bag and a couple of fingers and didn't realize it was a false positive. (Or more likely didn't even bother to look at the evidence before flying off the handle.)

That's really stupid human oversight.

Or just idiots, there's quite an overlap.

Musk becoming so prominent and popular and insisting on not shutting up about anything had one positive benefit: we saw that the establishment in this country is largely made up of rich psychopaths who neither care about the impact of their policies on normal people, nor understand the impact or even understand how self defeating it ultimately is. And often are just nasty not because they think it's necessary or helpful, but because they can, and they get pleasure out of making other people's lives a misery.

Oh sure, we all suspected, but Musk spoke the quiet part out loud. And he crapped on various groups in public until inevitably he crapped on one you or I was a member of, and we saw what a load of bullshit it all was.

If we survive the next few years and ever get a government that cares about people in again, even to the ludicrously low level that Democrats did (hey, at least they made a half-assed attempt to get us all healthcare), one of the first things on the priority list has to be strengthening the rights of employees and reforming how much businesses prioritize profit compared to their employees and customers. The focus, profit wise, should be on long term sustainability, not on shareholders.

The Phoenix was originally a myth of an Egyptian bird, originally named, I believe, in Greek.
The Chinese have their own mythological history, and "phoenix" doesn't exactly map onto it. Saying that the phoenix is the same as the Zhuque is analogous to saying that Jehovah is the same as Zeus...they were/are both storm gods, but they were/are significantly different. (I'm not sure what tense to use in that sentence.)

FWIW, Iceland has recently had some volcanic activity which ought to have resulted in large areas with warmer than usual rock. I wouldn't be surprised if in some area ponds of water stay melted over the winter (at least at the bottom).

You've got climate, weather, and terrain...and really local micro-climate.

I believe you are only looking at your part of the job. Somebody speced it, somebody negotiated the contracts, somebody designed the look, or at least approved the design. Somebody advertised it. There are probably others I haven't thought of.

*IF* that's correct (I think it's oversimplified) then that's part of why the responsibility must remain on the submitter.

More to the point, when the project receives the code or documentation, it can't tell what process was used to construct the code or documentation. So the responsibility must remain with the submitter.

The dotcom boom and bust of the 2000s shows that what one era thinks will become a commodity can be very far off the mark.

You are assuming that AI will be a commodity which will be in demand. If that's not the case, your argument completely breaks.

He said "helped issue in" so it's quite plausibly correct. Lots of groups probably helped.

The problem is that an AI will "confidently lie", in a convincing way. It's a real problem, and that's why the submitter MUST remain responsible.

If, as seems probable, AI improves over the next few years, then that responsibility may be relocated, but not yet

Uh, no. Center of gravity isn't related to how high the driver sits.

Ah, I see, you think they should use low-floor buses. Those are a lot more expensive, have higher maintenance costs (especially the kneeling ones), require flatter terrain (buses don't go offroading, but where I live they can't stay on the pavement all the time and also have to contend with deep snow), and give up seating capacity because the wheel wells and rear engine intrude into the seating are. Their only real advantage is accessibility. City bus systems can't predict where disabled people will be, so all buses have to be accessible.

School districts, on the other hand, do know where the disabled kids are so it's much more cost effective to buy and operate less expensive buses for moving the 95% of the kids who can climb stairs and to operate a separate fleet of smaller buses equipped for accessibility to pick up the disabled kids. So, they save the money on buses and spend it instead on teachers and classrooms.

As a taxpayer and a parent and grandparent, I think that's the right choice.

Dude, your confirmation bias is running circles around you.

Okay... but what does that have to do with the center of gravity? And those sticks are just as important for rear-engine buses as for front-engine buses, though they probably don't have to be quite as long.

In Utah I don't think I've seen one of those for at least 20 years, and they were rare before that.