I hope they have an option 2 and 3, because killing anything that mates with x is a guaranteed way to create sexual selection.

I get the strong impression this whole summary and article were designed to push a buzzword into my vocabulary. So: Define "fintech" and tell me why I should use it instead of more precise descriptions of various companies, procedures or trends?

>What am I missing?

Musk's hype and overambitious promises, people who hate his politics and are therefore looking for any reason to call anything he does a failure, the fact that most of the early Super Heavies so far went boom (this is not a surprise, but some people don't remember how many Falcons went boom before they developed into one of the most reliable rockets available) and possibly a few launch and moon landing failures.

AI is absolutely useless for writing a decent story. But it's brilliant at smashing through writers block (suggesting places my story could go next), and research features are great at synthesizing the collective of writing advice from across the internet.

>I see a future where we end up like the humans in WALL-E... just fat blobs who can't walk

You say that like it's a bad thing. The entire history of human innovation has been a relentless drive to eliminate toil.We replaced farmhands with tractors and are now replacing tedious coding with AI. This is the endgame we've been building toward. The WALL-E scenario shouldn't be seen as a warning about technology. It's a critique of what humans might choose to do with an existence free from mandatory work. The problem isn't the chair, it's the person sitting in it. A future where survival is automated could just as easily unlock a renaissance of human creativity, philosophy, and exploration as it could lead to mass lethargy.

>Artists will always

The argument that artists will "always" retain an edge by fixing artifacts or choosing lighting mistakes a temporary bug for a permanent feature. The "human touch" tasks like fixing artifacts or choosing lighting are a temporary patch on an improving technology. You assume human qualities like taste, and originality are insurmountable moats but AI is already not just an apprentice executing an order. AIs are collaborators in discovery. Their "misunderstandings" and unexpected outputs can introduce novel pathways that a human, constrained by habit and bias, might never have found. The artist's intent may evolve from dictating a final image to curating the surprising results of a creative dialogue with the machine.

The more interesting question is not whether AI can learn our taste, but whether it can develop its own. By training on the entirety of art history, AI could identify and generate entirely new aesthetic systems, alien to our own, which we may come to appreciate. Originality, then, is not about a divine spark but about the capacity for novel synthesis. A parrot can say "I love you" without feeling love, but the words still evoke emotion in the person who hears them. Similarly, AI can generate an image of profound sadness or joy without feeling anything. If the work evokes a genuine emotional and intellectual response in the viewer, the "emptiness" of its origin may not matter. The meaning is co-created in the mind of the human observer. The future of art, therefore, is not about humans retaining a monopoly on craft. That battle is already lost. It is about a shift in the artist's role: from a maker of objects to an explorer of concepts. Enduring human value will lie in the framing of the idea, the curation of the AI's output, and the construction of the narrative that gives the final piece its meaning. And of course the "purely human" piece will always be valued for that alone regardless of technical skill.

"you'll just have to work harder" doesn't work. Companies have always been coming up with excuses to demand longer hours from their employees, and those unwilling to work those longer hours quit. Whether the excuse is AI or something else.

Yeah, my congress-critter is totally going to take my letter as more important than the percentage of greenbacks a lobbyist has paid him to ignore me.

The illegality of downloading for personal use hinges on me making a copy on my personal device. The original intent of these laws was to forbid reproduction, as reproduction for the purposes of selling was the expected outcome of that. Making a copy for my personal device does not violate the spirit of those laws, and saying it's copyright violation is a weasely abuse of the intent of copyright law. Which in itself is just an outright theft from public domain and a violation of the intents of the constitution.

I have no doubt that this is going to be a fruitful conversation. All will approach with an open mind, all will set their biases aside at the door, all will be willing to debate in good faith and drill down to provable facts. This is gonna be gud.

Water doesn't disappear. Generally it's treated and put back into the ecosystem.

Bureaucracy in general is hardest on the people least able to cope with it. Whether it's welfare applications, requesting intervention, or for example trying to start a business the poorest people are least able to even start the right paperwork and also the least able to fill out the reams of red tape, or know how to fill it out. A properly designed system would be finding those people and helping them instead of presenting a faceless bureaucracy and if you can't afford a solicitor, tough.

It's pure symbolism. You can build solar panels and the land will still be poisoned, if it was poisoned before. It's not like we have a shortage of deserts with a lot of sun. The best thing to do with the coal mines if we're not going to clean them up is to cordon them off and let nature grow over them for 200 years or so.

It was an invitation to debate and Bluesky showed how far it is from free discussion when it banned him. Bringing silencing tactics to a debate isn't just bad form, it's evil.

Companies like Amazon seem to be betting on the AI taking over theory. It's probably the only explanation that makes sense now, because their reputation among skilled technical people will be permanently damaged by moves like this. It won't suddenly repair itself whenever the pendulum swings back to being an employee's market, if the great AI revolution turns out to be just another hype cycle after all.

Working at a FAANG used to be attractive to a lot of highly skilled technical people and having employment history inside that bubble used to be a positive thing on your resume. I'm not sure how true either of those things is any more. Maybe those who are still there and making premium TC in a big US city are still getting a decent deal out of it. For others, most of those big brands seem to be increasingly unattractive, and having history there seems to be increasingly regarded as neutral or even negative when employers outside that bubble are hiring.