Ironically, the ads will probably be for TV shows like "911" ... :-)

Not all Nvidia exports to China are banned by America.

Even older Nvidia chips are superior to what China can produce domestically.

On a related note... Way, *way* back when I was still in college I opened the door to a knock and found a guy holding a U.S. Marshal badge asking for me. My mind raced thinking, "What the hell have I done?" He was there to do a background check for a friend's security clearance. Whew!

Also, other than them both being around now, not really sure what ties AI (or the "AI Generation") and Crypto -- except maybe both (perhaps) being scams that mainly help the rich get richer (at, probably, the expense of others) ... -- oh, wait ...

I'd be confused too if Windows told me that I had reached EOL. :-O

Trump will pardon them in 3... 2... 1... then say, "I don't know who they are." (Then continue complaining about Biden using an Autopen.)

'No idea who he is,' says Trump after pardoning crypto tycoon CZ

You can thank the federal DOT regulations for a good part of this. When every car is required to meet a very long list of requirements, like rear-view cameras and accompanied display, the cost is passed straight on to the consumer.

There are many vehicles kept out of the US market by these regulations. I own a Suzuki Samurai (you know, the little "jeep" thing from the 1980s), and there is actually a very large group of people still fixing these up and running them. Well, they still make them (called the Suzuki Jimny) and they are fully modernized, and start under $20k USD. These things would sell like CRAZY in the US, but they aren't legal here. Basically everywhere else in the world, but not here. Because there is some requirement (IE extra expense) they are not meeting to allow them in the US market. There are many affordable vehicles like these out there that can't be sold in the US.

Just like with the NX-5 Planet Remover

Have you read the summary? This woman was denied access to the footage until after she went through rather a lot of hoops to get their attention. It's my contention that she should never have been a person of interest in the first place. She should not have had to do any of the footwork she did. The police saw data they liked, and they stopped thinking. That's not okay, and the firehose of garbage input is a large contributing factor here.

While that may be true - and I do thank you for it - there's zero chance I'll remember in the future because a} "dead dinosaurs" has a certain ring to it, b} I'm old and unlearning things is harder than learning them especially when c} it changes the nature of the discussion in no appreciable way.

No snark intended. It's just sort of like when some people are having a discussion about vegetables and someone lists what they like in a salad and it includes tomatoes and someone pipes up that those are fruits... and everyone goes back to completely ignoring that fact for the rest of their lives.

Rust nerds can't get a date. :-)

Thing is... we know people get wrongfully convicted. That's only one step worse than wrongfully accused.

Assuming for a moment that your lawyer can convince the judge/jury that the footage isn't quite good enough - which isn't a given - what does that cost you? In terms of time, in terms of money, in terms of reputation an accusation has a burden to it. There's always a stigma left over. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Under many circumstances people will never look at you the same. We should be striving for as low a false-accusation level as possible, and this isn't it.

Let's also throw in that camera footage unfairly penalizes black people. Dim footage and night footage leaves low contrast and it's easy to say "yeah, that looks like the accused" when all you've got is dark on dark pixels. Facial-recognition and surveillance footage both paint pictures that aren't always just.

I hear you, but I have a different angle.

What happens when the only evidence police have implicates SuspectA? They're going to focus on SuspectA, regardless of if SuspectA is innocent or not. Meanwhile the actual guilty party - who has no observed evidence trail - is going to be ignored. I think the flood of low-quality data in the form of poor cameras which aren't supposed to be recording other private property does disservice to investigations.

The same thing is going to happen in a court. "Well, this footage looks like it could be you, and we know your vehicle was in the area, and there's nobody else coming up at all, so the overwhelming evidence says it's you. And you wore a wig."

(Smart) criminals are going to game the system and won't show up. Innocent people will. This is the problem with blanket surveillance.

Odds are good. There's already been phenomenal progress in the last ten years. It's amazing what companies come up with when they're encouraged to not just keep burning dead dinosaurs.