Replacing makes as much literal sense, as you say, but  the same meaning is not asserted .  USA and Western Europe, while mongrelizing recently, are still living in the shadow of 13-14th Century Italian/French Enlightenment. Russia and China and Islamic lands never experienced  this humanizing experience, and thus in their darkest of hearts still act like 8th century savages.

"There is no post-AI economy, there is only homelessness, poverty and starvation. That's exactly what billionaires intend." Really?  Wealth prefers a dystopian hell-whole? I would think the privileged  value SECURITY above all. Peasants with  chicken in every pot and a pork-chop for breakfast ... or a brook trout in every creel ... never threaten the lord-of-manor. Have our financial  masters become stupid in their success? That would be a damning critique of post-modern wealth; say nothing of the institutions that educated them. 

Then the yuan would rise ...

There is one thing they want to buy, Euro assets ... something which they can only do because the EU allows it.

If sabotage becomes an explicit act of war on US/EU/Russian/Chinese territory it might cause some hesitation on all sides.

It always boils down to the question: Does it matter?

Does it matter if you have 9 or 10 dollars, if all you want is to buy an ice cone for $3.50?

Does it matter if there are 9 or 10 parking lots if you know 5 of them are occupied, and you want to park your car?

Sometimes, 9 or 10 is a question of life and death. Are there 9 or 10 people in the burning building, and have we account for all of them rescued from the fire? Sometimes it is totally irrelevant.

Same with Dark Matter. If we want to account for effects on cosmic scales, it is really important. For gravitational effects in our Solar system, not so much.

I though Godels Theorem had resolved this "thinking" issue. A machine can generate only algorithmically-based outputs. Humans ( reasoning entities ) may produce non-algorithmically generated outputs(truths). So nominally you are correct ... "Reasoning is whatever a machine cannot yet do". What  issue you left out is that infinite (fluid)  class of outputs a machine (algorithm) CANNOT  NEVER generate.

We could also call it "apparent gravitational effects, which don't fit our models right now, but would fit perfectly well if we assume about five times more mass than we can actually account for."

No, it's Nibbler poop, as we all know.

People have a very important source of knowledge which is totally missing from AI: experience.

A person knows what "hot" means, because it has touched a hot surface during its lifetime at least once and felt the pain. A person knows how a speed bump affects the car ride, and how lemon tastes. A person knows which shape fits into which hole, because as a child, it has played the game.

Persons learn all the time by formulating hypotheses about the world and then experience how it works out.

AI totally misses this feedback. Or as my father uses to say: AI talks about color like a blind person.

Yeah yeah, it's an easy shot to just say, "Trump would harm the environment if he knew there was progress made somewhere"...and for the record, I have *never* voted for him. ...but I think the fact that a number of comments in the thread echo the sentiment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. The ban on CFCs worked effectively due to global cooperation, but also because of another reason: it was an incredibly easy transition.

There was no ban on in-home refrigerators or freezers. There was no mandatory removal of existing home refrigerators. There was no mandate that cars were sold without air conditioners. There was no fine for using hair spray. Industry had drop-in replacements that worked at least 90% as well, were of similar cost, and worked with existing systems which required those chemicals for operation.

Had the CFC ban required buildings to do six-figure HVAC replacements, or mandate that new cars didn't have air conditioners at all, or perform a blanket-ban on aerosol products completely, or require everyone to replace their refrigerators, or if HFCs were a.) ten times the price, b.) required a top-off once a month, and/or c.) only got half as cold, it'd still be a wedge issue and that hole would be triple the size.

Peel back the layers of rhetoric and sensationalism, and you'll see that there is an element of truth behind a lot of the pushback. Did anyone like drinking through those paper straws that tasted like toilet paper tubes? No; they were about as universally unpopular as a colonoscopy, and I've never once seen a report that they nudged the needle on improving the environment.

My state is talking about banning gas cars and gas stoves and gas furnaces...but over 80% of the electricity generated in my state is generated by...burning oil and natural gas. Does burning oil pollute less when my local power plant does it instead of my car? ...So why is the Red Team in my deeply-blue state so backwards-thinking for pushing back against a ban that won't meaningfully improve its carbon footprint while *also* causing homebuilding prices to go up, *and* gas prices to go up, *and* insurance prices to go up, *and* electric rates to go up?

The CFC ban was easy *because* it was trivial to implement, and caused little to no impact on consumers as a result. I'm pretty sure that *most* environmental regulations would receive bipartisan support and consumer acceptance if they were that easy to do...but somehow, the Red Team are the curmudgeons who don't care about the environment because they don't want to drink cardboard or give up gas stoves to achieve no meaningful improvement on climate change numbers. They're terrible, uneducated, backwater hicks for saying, "build enough climate-friendly grid capacity to handle the expected increase in usage and THEN roll out the mandates", especially when those who shame them suddenly start saying, "not in MY backyard" when windmills and solar panels start getting proposed in THEIR neighborhoods...

...so yeah, Trump's rhetoric on the climate is terrible, no argument. The Republicans *generally* give more pushback on climate initiatives than Democrats, fair. But the CFC ban worked because HFCs were cheap, easy, effective, drop-in replacements, ready to go by time the bans took effect. When climate solutions look like that, they get implemented. When they look like an expensive headache for nominal improvements, they get pushback.

Want proof? Who was the US president who signed on to the Montreal Protocol in 1987? Ronald Reagan. Who was president when it went into effect in 1989? George H.W. Bush.

It's becoming quite clear that semaglutide works by reducing the addiction component of eating, but also affects other addicting substances.

And the nausea discussed apparently counts if you have one episode of nausea or vomiting in a given year. I've had that without semaglutide often enough.

That it doesn't work on Alzheimer isn't a huge surprise to me, the latest research indicates there is a far higher likelihood of Alzheimer being caused by an immune response gone wrong, than by being fat. However, the things that make you fat may also moderate that immune response.

I got a desktop computer in 1995. It had a 686 Cyrix at 166MHz, 16MB of RAM, an 8x CD-ROM, 1.6 GB hard disk...and it was one of the fastest computers in my circle. By 2001, it was unusable. USB was on its way to replacing serial and parallel peripherals, which Windows 95 didn't support. 166MHz was slow, compared to the 600MHz P3's that were available (and a year later, they'd hit 1GHz). 48MB of RAM was nothing (64MB was common, 256MB was available), and while 1.6GB was a bottomless pit when Word documents was all I was creating, and 50MB installations for video games were considered pigs, 10GB drives were available...and needed for the CDs I was ripping into MP3s. Six years of computer progress was clear, obvious, palpable, and using the old computer had a clear feeling of constraint.

Today, unless you're doing local AI, 8K video rendering, or a handful of other niche applications, a 6-year-old computer will be perfectly usable. Six years ago, SSDs were already the default, 6-core CPUs were the default, and it was right at the cusp of when 16GB became mainstream. A six year old computer is perfectly usable for most tasks. It runs current iterations of OSes (admittedly a 6-year-old Mac might not because of the OSX shelf life on Intel), it *might* need a RAM upgrade, and it *might* benefit from a newer SSD to some extent...but while a 6-year difference was night-and-day in 2000, it's turned into "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

And, so too it is with phones. The difference between the iPhone 4 and iPhone 8 was readily understood and appreciated by most users; the storage capacity increases, camera improvements, FaceID implementation, Apple Wallet/NFC, bidirectional lightning cable, and screen size increase were all understood, palpable, and basically sold themselves. I went through the Wikipedia page to get a feel for what changed between the 13 and the 17...and the answers were the satellite connectivity (that may-or-may-not-work depending on carrier), Apple Intelligence (that they famously are still trying to get off the ground), the dynamic island, a few more camera improvements, and colors...oh, and they are more expensive now.

Samsung is kinda the same deal; the foldable phones are nifty, but at $2,000, one can get a phone, a laptop, *and* a tablet for the same price...and the difference between an S21 and an S25 is similarly uninspiring for a $1,000 upgrade.

So yeah, phones have gotten "good enough" for most people, they've been that way for a while, despite the price tags more frequently involving commas. So...yeah...makes perfect sense that with more money expected for less improvement...that 3-year-old phones are the norm now.

It's just below IRC and just above Usenet.

Hate to disappoint...but it was exactly that for longer than it was the P2P network from which it got its notoriety.

Circa 2003, Napster came back as a legit music seller, just like iTunes. They spent a few years selling DRM'd WMA files, but they were between a rock and a hard place because Apple wouldn't license the iTunes DRM that worked on iPods, nor would they license Microsoft's WMA format, and the RIAA wasn't about to let them sell ordinary MP3 files without DRM (God knows how Amazon managed to score that deal)...so, Napster blamed Microsoft for the fact that their sales paled in comparison to Apple.

I'd argue that they were also a bit ahead of their time; Napster To Go was a monthly subscription service that used Microsoft's Janus DRM to enforce subscriptions...the Slashdot crowd hated the DRM at the time, but in a pre-LTE era, that was pretty much how subscription music on mobile was going to happen...and several years later, we have Spotify, which is basically the successor of Napster To Go, enforcing its DRM by other means. They also had a short-lived partnership with XM Radio that allowed subscribers to listen to linear streams of certain music channels, in turn allowing rental or purchases of songs that were liked while broadcast. A decade later, Shazam would do that with Apple Music and audio recognition, but Napster implemented a rudimentary version of the idea before Apple implemented iMessage.

In 2011, Rhapsody acquired Napster, but their niche was in licensing to other businesses. While they kept the "Spotify from Temu or Wish.com" setup for a while, their real bread and butter was in licensing to other companies; many of those music channels available on cable subscriptions were Rhapsody on the back end. They also did 'compliant music for businesses', similar to Muzak and other companies who pumped music into stores and bars and things. Amusingly enough, Rhapsody rebranded itself as Napster, and continued on the model, going through a handful of private equity firms, until earlier this year, when once again, the company found itself in court...again...due to unpaid licensing fees.

So...yeah, while they've floundered around for a number of reasons (some their fault, some not), they were a P2P service for about three years...and a (mostly) law-abiding corporation for over 20...and most of the highlights were posted as articles here on Slashdot.

The Spain outage would have happened with Nuclear exactly the same way. It was not a problem of not enough power. It was a problem of too much power, which was not absorbed by the consumers, and caused a build-up of over-voltage, which could not be dumped anywhere. When the grid automatically switched off power sources to damp the swing, it over-corrected, leading to a power loss of more than 2 GW, which then caused the shut-down of large electricity consumers. With a fat nuclear reactor, you would not have changed anything. Still, the grid regulation would have overreacted, with the same consequences.