It really is a type of fraud when you think about it, they knew the stores were understaffed, by intention, so it's not an excuse. Part of this does fall on the customer, since they can verify the price at checkout, but, the executive teams can't try and re-direct the blame.

So you'd rather wait to fix the bigger social problems first before fixing smaller ones? I don't know, I think it's good to attack the smaller problems first. It makes you feel good about small victories, you gain experience with similar problems, and it prevents analysis paralysis. It also builds momentum, everyone likes a winner.

You also have to remember that minors aren't full people, they are legal dependents and censorship is the wrong word to use in this case. It is absolutely the right and obligation of guardians and governments to make decisions for them about what they can and cannot do on the Internet, among other things. The kids will grow up soon enough, and be free to choose by then.

There is nothing open about any of the "open" AI shops. Every "open" model from them is the equivalent of a free mp4, that runs on a simple player, to whet your appetite and make you want to rent their more powerful models.

A real open project supplies the preferred components for completely rebuilding the software. That means, you should get from such a project all the source documents (not preparsed token datasets) for training and all the training scripts they use themselves and all the specs. If you don't, it's only a pretend open AI project.

The big difference is the profit motive in the absence of a truly free market.

The big difference is the requirement to test them to make sure they work. It's expensive, and most candidates fail.

This is potentially the biggest strenth of a vaccine approach. According to the Internet the flu vaccine costs my government an average of $5.43 cents. Individuals can get it for under $100 in most parts of the world where you have to pay the full cost. The reason it's not stupid expensive, being a new drug with novel components most years, is because the procedure for making flu vaccines is well known and has a special type of approval that lets new variations be used without extensive trials.

It's not particularly difficult to determine the protein that a bit of DNA codes for. It's more difficult to figure out which of those are going to be reasonable antigens to target, but you don't really have to. Cancer cells aren't unknown pathogens, they're regular old human cells with mutations.

You don't need to do that either though. Cancer mutations aren't infinitely diverse. "Personalized medicine" sounds like a treatment just for you and you alone, and maybe in a Star Trek future it will be, but in the meantime it means a targeted treatment. You'd identify something that occurs in 10% or 1% or 0.01% of a particular type of cancers, make a treatment, and sell that along with a test for that mutation. We've already got several of those based on more traditional immunotherapy. RNA vaccines just make it a lot easier so we'll have lot more options, including ones that target the 1% and 0.01% instead of just the 10%.

It's worse than that. They insist on not selling any bitcoin. So their ability to repay the loan, issue dividends, whatever, depends entirely on their ability to get more people to give them money.

Infinity: I do not think it means what you think it means.

ACs say the darndest things.

Social media has become a toxic dump. If you wouldn't allow children to play in waste effluent from a 1960s nuclear power plant, then you shouldn't allow them to play in the social media that's out there. Because, frankly, of the two, plutonium is safer.

I do, however, contend that this is a perfectly fixable problem. There is no reason why social media couldn't be safe. USENET was never this bad. Hell, Slashdot at its worst was never as bad as Facebook at its best. And Kuro5hin was miles better than X. Had a better name, too. The reason it's bad is that politicians get a lot of kickbacks from the companies and the advertisers, plus a lot of free exposure to millions. Politicians would do ANYTHING for publicity.

I would therefore contend that Australia is fixing the wrong problem. Brain-damaging material on Facebook doesn't magically become less brain-damaging because kids have to work harder to get brain damage. Nor are adults mystically immune. If you took the planet's IQ today and compared it to what it was in the early 1990s, I'm convinced the global average would have dropped 30 points. Australia is, however, at least acknowledging that a problem exists. They just haven't identified the right one. I'll give them participation points. The rest of the globe, not so much.

They had a very good reporting engine when OLAP was a new thing back in the early 2000s. A business model licensing software that actually delivered value to their customers. What a concept!

Now they are a Ponzi scheme dressed up as a company. Another indication how far the US has fallen that the SEC tolerates this kind of BS.

It's common in English too. The two OPs might be from a particular society that's allergic to multisyllabic words.

A corporation is a legal concept that lets a group of people own property and act together. Many people are expecting AI to replace corporations, especially in software development because one guy with an idea will be able to do what now requires a bunch of shareholders to pool their resources and hire a bunch of specialists.