Out of curiosity, does the same thing apply to chemistry? In chemistry class, it became pretty obvious pretty quickly that chemistry could be used to do some bad things, and it wasn't rocket science. Trying to teach chemistry with all possible implementation of adverse effects eliminated means you cannot teach chemistry. And if the student does something bad, the teacher is responsible.

Teaching biology can show people ways to eliminate other people. Scratch biology.

As well, the information that ChatGPT scrapes is easily available - that's where it gets the information given to the killer. If aggregating existing information is a crime, then we must eliminate the sources ChatGPT used. So where do we stop?

Sounds a lot like Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World only purposely going there.

Exactly. If a person uses ChatGPT to get ideas on how to commit a crime, at what granularity do we prosecute? The people who did the coding? The people who taught them? The internet? The computer companies, teh engineers who designed the computers? The companies that made the components? School that taught them how to read? Seems like everyone on earth is responsible for every murder in the "ChatGPT is responsible" case.

I have a little cart to "lug" mine around. I need real estate to work quickly. At home I have 3 monitors, from a 43 inch to 27 to the laptop. So a tiny (yes 13 inches is tiny) laptop screen is going to force me to switch screens on the laptop, and magnify them as well. Real time killers, and no fun.

I do as well, 43 inch, 27 inc, and yeah, my laptop is 19 or thereabouts. Using all three. But I'm not always at the office, so I need some real estate to see what I'm running. My use case makes a 13 inch screen pretty useless.

I do as well. Part of why I get laptops with metal cases. They still get beat up. With keeping laptops around 3 years, when I'm done, they look like hell.

I don have issues with the repairable - actually replaceable- parts concept, but anything I'm making money with I need to be without the "build your own computer" concept, which this is very similar to.

Who do you want to be the defacto superpower in the world? If you geet your wish, and the USA is at least diminished, and hopefully destroyed, tell us who will be the right and just superpower.

Insightful, but you'll probably be modded to oblivion. I week or so ago, I asked a simple question. If the US disappeared tomorrow who would rise to the US once held. With an attempt engage if that would be better or worse.

I think only one person answered. The rest were just versions of "Trump sucks", "USA sucks".

It's the old adage, be careful what you wish for, because you might get it. The obvious answer to my question was China. I'm sure they will be gentle and peaceful to all. Or maybe not.

Then again, Hillary Clinton received several million more votes than Trump in 2016, only to lose through an electoral college quirk.

But now even Japan has elected a PM that is a woman, Sanae Takaichi. Crazy to me that Japan which even a short couple of decades when I was there barely allowed a female engineer to speak at a meeting is now leap frogging the US electing women to top offices.

It is rather amusing. I worked for two women directors, Our technology VP was a woman, Our present University Prez is a woman, and a "person of color" My wife was a VP and the highest paid person in her company. I guess they don't really count.

Meanwhile, I gave up several promotions so that a woman (yes, less qualified) could be promoted over me. In irony, all left. Am I part of the problem? I mean, I have a penis, and that is why I wasn't promoted.

Full disclosure - I have a unique skillset, and part of the deal I had was that my pay had to reflect my ability to have a career at other places in short order. P You are attempting to hijack a discussion - to have the 2016 election be solely about women. I mean, that is all your reply is about. Alas, this happens some times.

There were other issues as well. Some gender based - using the term gender in teh modern interpretation - not male and female, some rejection of science and genetics. Some rejection of certain demographics, such as the working class.

In the end, all the Republicans had to do was show the ads, cite the stories.

This is not to even say that those voting for Trump have received any better treatment. They haven't.

After the 2024 Election, I did an analysis. Part of what I do. The interesting thing is the utter rejection from the same people who think that every principle the 2020's Democrats endorsed. Demographics and statistics. Utter rejection. Oh well. So I don't spend as much time trying to convince people against their narrative.

While the logic is interesting, no, consumers aren't happy. They were just presented with two horrible candidates, and the Dems were off the rails, confused and officially believing some things that were just wrong.

And while I didn't vote Republican, it looks like that hard left and irrational swing the dems took just made the equally bad Republican choice look like the lesser of two evils.

I question that choice, but here we are.

I can't even imagine the mechanism they would attempt to use. Have every company who ever sold anything with a tariff connected to it go through all their records, then send the government a comprehensive listing of each sale , then the guvmint issuing checks? Or sending the money directly to the businesses then having the business figure it out?

This version of tariffs was just a really bad, illegal idea, and was for all intents and purposes, just a punitive tax that harmed both businesses and consumers.

The best we could hope for was the declaration of illegality, then returning the money to the businesses. So I'm okay with that.

Disagree - All Republicans are guilty. They made a series of choices.

The Republican Party, which hates taxes, needed to use a different name when they decided that Tariffs are the path forward,

All of that, the good and the bad, exist in every one of us. It's a helluva thing

Theory, yes. There are some things that are pretty difficult to put into practice however. The question remains that even if we do achieve long lasting fusion that generates power, what then of the parasitic power loads. This is not a trivial problem. It may be an insurmountable problem.

The ecstatic claims that we are there, with fusion power now completely feasible, are a bit deceptive. The Qin to Qout might be 1 or somewhere a little higher, however, there is a a real issue with generating that Qin. Press releases and physicists and others grubbing for money conveniently gloss over the fact that QTot is actually around .1

Will we make it to a Qtot of say 2, or better yet 10 of 27/7/365 fusion power generation? Maybe. But we are much closer to the beginning than the end of that happy day when the world's energy problems are finally solved. My money says possible, but not all that likely.

Just a note - controlled and sustained fusion is nowhere near established. We can do the rapid and uncontained version pretty well though, and there is a big fusion reactor 93 million miles away for us to use