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

Canada didn't kick the crazy people out of the party. Carney put them in his cabinet.

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.

If the recent change to Twitter which put location on user profiles is anything to go by, most of the troll farms seem to be in India and Pakistan.

Itâ(TM)s also a violation of the license agreement with Apple.

Yep. CAFE-style regulation is the wrong way to attempt to reduce carbon emissions. The right way is to impose a carbon tax, then let consumers vote with their wallets and engineers work to make the right tradeoffs to meet customer demand. My guess is that consumers would choose to buy the more fuel-efficient vehicles and engineers might make the same tradeoffs... but now it would be clear that those tradeoffs are worthwhile.

Gas is pretty much exactly at its long-term, inflation-adjusted average price, and right where it was in the 1950s. Since then, it was a little higher in the 70s, a little lower in the 90s, a little higher in the early 2000s, but we're now back at the long-term normal price.

See https://afdc.energy.gov/data/1...

Whether the normal price of gas is "cheap" or "expensive" depends on your income and lifestyle, I'd think.

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?

Indeed. And the issue was detected by looking at the data, finding fault with it and that is perfectly fine. Now, if the MAGAs and other denier-idiot assholes were right, the correction would never have happened. But it did. And that means things work and deliver good results. The process is just a bit more complex and takes a bit longer than their tiny brains can handle.

You clearly have not the slightest idea what the problem actually is. Well done, you are an idiot.

Well, if that is your take-away here, you clearly are a dangerous moron and asshole.

And no, there are NOT the same people. You are just lumping idiots in the press and in politics together with actual scientists because you have no idea how things actually work.

Nice denier nonsense you have there. The problem, which you are clearly not smart enough to understand is that this basically a permanent reduction and it is one that will be getting worse. You seem to think that at the end of the century, there is one point, where there will be some reduction. That is not the case. The reality is that each year will see an increasing reduction and that will last for a very long time. The problem is that very soon this will overtake total growth and then we will have negative growth each year.

Not a surprise that somebody like you does not get what is essentially a simple school-level "interest over multiple years" calculation.