The current system has well known and expectable failure modes. This, unfortunately, cannot be true of any replacement system.

Japan had launched several of these cargo missions since the shuttle stopped flying. Nice to have diverse cargo vehicles capable of supplying the station.

I think this is a line I would draw legally, much like every car has to include an ODB2 port if it's equipped with a cellular modem it must include a SIM slot or a user programmable eSIM. No technical excuse otherwise on that one, that's pure lockin for money.

That's a cool idea, I'm going to try it from now on. I have to go now though, I have a meeting at 00:11.

Real D&D didn't involve computers. (It often did involve painting purchased figurines.)

ok, that's you being too brittle. Set the requirement, and accept anything that fills them. You're just wrong.

Actually, I expect that parts of the TSMC assembly factories are automated, which would make them "AI factories". A computer center is not an "AI Factory" unless it is running a factory.

Another plausible meaning would be an organization that turns out AIs, like OpenAI or Anthropic.

Most other uses are abuse of the language.

I don't think "most likely" is a suitable basis for safety rules. OTOH, one also shouldn't demand certainty, as that's not going to be possible. Say a solution that would work in over 97% of the cases...perhaps even a bit more conservative.

OTOH, nothing will protect you against an ID10T error.

Understood but I think you should keep in mind that Molten-salt batteries have become a thing.

If you never try then you can never succeed. Science is full of repeated failures... and then someone gets it right.

This is partly (or mostly I would say) due to the fact that in China the state owns both of it's primary nuclear power construction and operation companies. Those things like standard designs, quality standards are more controlled since the project goal can be to build the plant and just stay on budget, not necessarily turn a "profit" or have to go seek investment.

If and when China wants to build their own sodium fast reactor (they may already be) they'll declare it a project, fund it and just start doing it.

So really, this is a sodium-cooled fast reactor which means they are using molten salt for thermal energy storage. If I understand correctly, development has been held back material science problems since sodium is chemically reactive.

Why sodium? The benefit of sodium is that you reduce the risk of a meltdown since water has a relatively low boiling point. This allows the reactor to be "hot" run which is called a "fast reactor" Water-based fast reactors have to be run under high pressure so there is more risk involved.

Why makes fast reactors desirable? Per Wikipedia:

It depends on how far "net zero" you want to go. There are still a lot of people who live in places where the sun doesn't shine much for a good chunk of the year. It also gets dangerously cold. Heating a home uses an enormous amount of electricity. If you still plan on supplementing with natural gas, it's less of a problem. If you want to go all-electric, you are going to have to figure out how to generate a lot of power when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't come out much so people don't freeze to death.

Yes, because they are different. Privately-owned corporations may be better or worse but it's entirely dependent on the goals of the leadership. With publicly-traded corporations, the goals are already known: profit over everything else.

No, it's not the same because not all executives in privately-owned corporations don't have to worry about a quarterly earnings report could oust them from their position. Some privately-owned corporations mirror the behavior of publicly-traded corporations but not all.

The difference between them seems subtle but the impact is not because being publicly-traded guarantees they will be 100% profit driven. To my knowledge there is no exception to publicly-traded companies being entirely profit driven but I do know of examples of privately-owned corporations that are not.

Weapons detections systems send automated alerts. The specific form depends on the system. But no system is dialing up unanticipating randos on the phone and going, "Hello, police? I've got an emergency here!"

And unless the system had facial ID, and the police knew the "suspect", what they had to go on was the picture from the security camera, so they were already looking at the supposed "gun" in the picture and still saw fit to act like this.

Was a study done showing putting out cones and road flares is effective at alerting motorists that there is a disabled truck?

I honestly don't know if there was or not. However, if there wasn't (and a fair number of regulations aren't based on studies, nor are particularly well thought-out) why would a study need to be done to modify an existing regulation?