Do note that this happened to him when he was only six years old. I'm convinced your own love of doing things and going places may have started that young, but was shaped and nurtured over the following years. This man experienced vastly different formative years. It's no surprise that his outlook on life is very different from yours.

No it won't. It is in the company's best interest to preserve the actual value of the product. Right now they have a unique selling point, which they can leverage to increase their sale price. If the bacteria become resistant to this antibiotic as well, then they lose this unique property and they're no more valuable than similar products.

Plus, you know, the drug company can easily set up these in-patient facilities themselves. It's an extra avenue of profits!

I use it too and I noticed a message or two from Youtube when they started this. But like, at most two days later it all went back to normal.

For a brief moment I thought this was because Perseverance was a different mission and this would have been the first time two man-made objects sent to Mars encounter one another. But no, Perseverance is the rover that actually brought Ingenuity to Mars. So yeah, basically it's as surprising as a teenager taking a selfie at home and seeing one of their parents in the background.

Let's just hope IBM doesn't get involved with this technology...

From the Wikipedia article entitled "Zero-knowledge service": "The term "zero-knowledge" was popularized by backup service SpiderOak, which later switched to using the term "no knowledge" to avoid confusion with the computer science concept of zero-knowledge proof."

So the thought this gives me is that we should have a number of different AIs all work out a comprehensive set of policies, and then you have elected human representatives to debate and ultimately choose one of the packages.

No cherry-picking, because that's where human greed is going to come in once more.

I could honestly be okay with this.

There is absolutely no point comparing it to a low-level language. CPython runs in C, so there is always overhead.

I get the impression that it's more like they're selling a 747 assembly kit. Meaning you still need to find the engineers to bolt it all together, not to mention the entire flight crew...

Equally hypothetically, but since being porous seems to imply it uses less material, perhaps this is an unavoidable loss of material during the recycling process? As in, you can only make 99 recycled cathodes out of 100 old ones?

This was an appeal against the previous case, and from what I can tell, seems to have been aimed mostly at the formalities of the decision by the European Commission. In other words, Bayer AG was arguing that the EC was not allowed to take that decision, not that the decision was wrong.

From what I can tell, the argument that other alternatives are more dangerous was made in the original case and was dealt with there. If Bayer AG did not bring that up again in this appeal, then this court had no business ruling on that point (and indeed did not).

This is not from me but from a related article on a Belgian news site: Whatsapp encrypts the contents of messages, but stores (and uses for themselves) the metadata.

As in, where you were when you sent the message and at what time. Useful information for the police, so criminals don't want that.

16:9 is a more "natural" ratio; ie. it comes closer to how we see the world. This is useful if you wish to have an experience that fills your field of view as much as possible, like watching video or playing games.

However, while this fits our field of vision for just looking at stuff, it is totally different from our optimal field of vision when reading. Text can very quickly become too wide to read comfortably (or write), and having more text displayed vertically helps when scanning through a big body of text.

If we were only talking computers, you could argue those two usage patterns would drive the market in two directions. But when you add televisions, which are not used for working on, the market gets driven squarely in one single direction. There will be holdouts because the market for narrower, taller screens remains in existence, but it is the smaller one of the two.

So? Do it when it is feasible, which is a net gain. Don't do it when it's not, which is a net zero. Overall, it's a benefit.

Guido Van Rossum? Who invented Python? Why is Python fully OOP then?

Please provide a reference for this statement.