Sorry I guess I'm going to have to ask a more specific question. Do you have an example of anybody owning a few million $ in bitcoin *exchanging ALL of it* for something that is not Bitcoin or another cryptocurrency or crypto asset. The fact that you can exchange a small amount of bitcoin for the equivalent amount of dollars does not prove anything.

There are examples of people exchanging their entire hold of hundreds of millions in gold or stocks, without the value of those commodities crashing. Would like proof this is the same for bitcoin.

Do you have ANY examples of somebody exchanging more than about 1 bitcoin for anything other than other cryptocurrency?

With a wild twisting of words this author added "meaning the emissions were dumped up-front in China's coal plants" to try to make this sound bad.

ALL "manufacturing emissions" are "dumped up-front". There is not something special about China or using coal. And even with the 2x or more CO2 emissions of coal, a solar power panel replaces all that CO2 emission in just a few months, which is an awful lot better than a lot of other things that people claim are green.

I watch a lot of maritime disaster videos, so YouTubeâ(TM)s genius algorithm thinks Iâ(TM)d be interested in traveling on a cruise ship.

Damn you ruined my joke. You are right

It seems dubious to me that water in the fuel would have reached all 3 engines simultaneously, especially if one of them was not running.

I'm guessing they can tell from the wreckage that it was not running? And it should have been running by the time of the crash due to the power failure that triggered the emergency windmill generator (forgot what that is called). Is this correct? If so yea it sounds like 3 engines failed, which seems to me to mean a pretty major electronics failure?

Isn't the APU turned off during normal flight?

All crashes are due to the jet being too close to the ground.

It's like visual coding or RAD all over again. Whenever suits and PHBs are told there's a magic wand that'll allow them to do without paying people for the nitty-gritty bits, they get all excited and convince each other in their echo chamber that their dream of a company of all managers and no workers is just around the corner.

Then reality says "hi", the hype dies down, a few scam artists got rich and the world continues as it was, with a couple new cool tools in the toolbox of those who know how to use them correctly - which is generally the same people that were supposedly being replaced.

That's how I see AI. I've been writing software for the better part of 40 years. What I see from AI is sometimes astonishing and sometimes pathetic. I would never, ever, ever put AI generated code into production software without carefull checking and refactoring, and I would fire anyone who does.

Code completion is mostly in the "astonishing" part. If I write a couple lines of near-identical stuff, like assigning values from an input to a structured format for processing, the AI most of the time gets right the next line I want to write. Anything more complex than that is hit-and-miss.

Mostly, I use AI the way I would use an intern. "Can you look up how to use this function correctly? What are the parameters and their defaults?" or "Write me some code that's tedious to write (like lots of transformation operations) but not rocket science by far.
Essentially, it does faster and a little bit better what previously I'd have done with Google and Stackoverflow.

I have no fear it'll replace developers anytime soon. Half of the time the code is outright wrong, most of the time it has glaring security issues or isn't half as fault-tolerant as it should be, and for any case where I know how to do it without any research, I'd be faster writing the code myself then going through several iterations with an AI to get it done.

Well, your buying power would be crippled.

He absolutely was hit by the shock wave from a passing bullet, which caused visible damage to his ear.
Yes the metal of the bullet did not touch him, if it had there would not be much left of that side of his head.

WTF? You think the US government trusted what the Soviets said?

Sure, itâ(TM)s quite possible for two people to exchange offhand remarks about the local weather apropos of nothing, with no broader point in mind. It happens all the time, even, I suppose, right in the middle of a discussion of the impact of climate change on the very parameters they were discussing.