Why would it bother to try? It will hallucinate the answer that is most profitable to the advertisers.

You know, like it does now.

And quite different than the US: "Mainline railroad electrification in the United States is quite rare in comparison to most European or East Asian rail networks, with less than 1% of mainline trackage in the country being electrified"

(wikipedia)

4. Stupidity.

Unfortunately, the data isn't consistent. That's why they need to make corrections. The question is "Do the corrections make it more nearly accurate?", and that's really hard to demonstrate. When there's too much noise in the signal, it's really difficult to filter it out without losing the signal.

You're making a huge mistake by substituting your list of complaints for the actual question at hand - 'will I more likely be better off if I do or don't go to college.'

The answer is still quite clear. Look at this, the part about changing attitudes is interesting in some way, but the facts pertinent to somebody making this decision is the graph of median annual earnings for those with vs. without a college degree. People obsess over small relative shifts in this size of the gap, but it's nowhere near disappearing - it's huge. https://www.pewresearch.org/so...

Also near-perfect drafting to reduce air resistance.

It's using UE5, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here? That it didn't need the new engine? That UE 5 is worse somehow?

Also, they can't drop the cel-shaded look, it's part of the character of the game. I'm not sure what they would transition to--more realism? That would be weird.

80% less than cars is a lot less, but I'm kind of surprised it's that much. It actually makes me wonder how a Prius would fare compared to a klunky old half-full (per load factor statistics) Amtrak train.

This one in fact, saying that survey response rates for official UK data had collapsed from 35% to 5%.

Survey fatigue is one, but I think people are also more wary about having their opinions attached to data these days. At least for formal, official data anyway, obviously social media is still going strong. I think a factor is that people aren't sure how it's going to be used and if it could come back to them in some way.

Typical AI shill answer (and the word "agentic" in the sentence is a dead giveaway too).

Wrong logic: a person's job should be gone if your "agentic" thing does the job cheaper AND at least as well.

As always, AI shills conveniently forget to factor in the quality of the work produced.

The reality of AI is, while it might be cheaper than real workers, it also enshittifies the entire world. And that's a fact.

Does it work without a Facebook account and 24/7 creepy corporate surveillance?

Oh...

Except, of course, for people who have old equipment that a) costs a hell of a lot to replace, and b) is durable enough that even at 15-20 years old, still works fine, even though the computer that controls it has been replaced several times.

But, hey, that's not you, so fuck them, eh?

We still have a few paint mixing machines (that cost as much as a car to replace) that use DB9 to connect to the computer. However, they're at least 15 years old.

I did manage to destroy an adapter because of that. But I don't blame the adapter, I blame me, doing something I knew not to do.

Then he should say that instead of saying don't remove USB-A ports.