What recourse would you have?

None. I'd just have to whip out my key, exchange a bunch of BTC for ten million hundred dollar bills, and retire into obscurity. I'd shrug and say "Oh well, I guess I'm not legally myself," as I wait for my harem to replace the hundred-dollar-bills-bedding that we're all going to fuck on.

That's probably what Craig Wright is doing right now. Why wouldn't he? If he's not doing this tonight, then he's probably not for real.

If there is evidence, I don't know about it. I merely infer its existence because the incentives are such that they benefit from attempting to be as accurate as they can. Undercharge and a claim can make them lose money. Overcharge and competitors take their customers.

But I don't think anyone really knew all the factors the insurance industry was using, and how they weighed them before this, either. Their algorithms have always been proprietary, haven't they?

Someone has to play Devil's Advocate, and I'm feeling like it today.

Insurance is about spreading risk, and different groups have different risks. Do you object to insurance costing more for a 16-year-old driver than it does for a 36-year-old driver? Do you object to insurance costing more for someone who has been in 3 collisions than 0 collisions, or for someone with 3 speeding or careless driving tickets, than someone with 0 tickets? Men vs women? This ZIP code vs that ZIP code?

This is just more of that.

If it costs you more, you're a victim of accuracy, but if it costs you less, then you're a beneficiary of accuracy. Boo hoo or yay, depending on how well you drive.

And this merely involves information that the buyer had already decided doesn't need to be kept private. Before they spent their money, they knew the vehicle spies on them; they just (maybe) forgot the consequences of that spying. If you cared enough to make sure your vehicle (and phone, watch, etc) doesn't spy on you, then you don't have the "problem" of your insurance premiums accurately reflecting your actual risk.

And so, I think that deep down, this is basically fair. Though I think that if it ever became maximally (magically!) accurate, then there would no longer be need for insurance at all, since we'd all know the future and then be able to plan for our liabilities (or lack thereof) directly, without amortizing it across the larger population. And that would be even more fair, though it's impossible to achieve.

That anyone gives a flying fuck about the exchange rate of Bitcoin is sad, and kind of shows that Bitcoin has failed at its purpose.

If Bitcoin had been successful, then instead of people talking about exchange rates, they'd be talking about the speed and/or the competitive pricing of transaction processing. That stuff is what matters, and stressing those values is how Bitcoin would have become good and generally usable.

If anything, the volatility of Bitcoin, and yes that even includes it going up in price (with the side-effect of making holders rich), is a weakness and just another thing to its discredit.

I wanted to like Bitcoin. I really did. I still think that deep down, there's a really great idea behind it. But that it's become an "investment" means that it's not worthy. Bitcoin has failed to live up to its hype, and the existence of this poll's question is an example of that failure.

I have no idea about Musk's legal claims and what he is owed. Maybe he's full of shit as usual, and maybe he has a great case.

But about having "open" in your name while your main product is proprietary: if I were on a jury, that combination of facts would give me the default assumption that the company intended willful fraud.

"Open"AI has the burden of proof that they're not crooks.

They can meet that burden by showing that we're all misspelling their name (it's really "O Peen AI"). Or they could meet that burden by providing a link to the full source and data, along with a statement that it's all been given to Public Domain.

Barring that, they very much look like intentional crooks who are deliberately ripping off all contributors and investors.

I wish them luck but I'm worried as fuck. I see how you could describe what they do as analogous to lending, but it mechanically isn't lending and the courts tend to use a very precise reading of the law when they adjudicate copyright-related things. Remember the 2600 DMCA trial? It all came down to very literal interpretation.

There is nothing in the source NYT article to indicate the Emirates who are hosting this one summit in a series of summits are "Leading" the summit.

Your headline is excessively clickbait-y.

And it's not just GPS -- fallback navigation systems are also corrupted

That seems a lot worse than losing GPS. GPS is a luxury, available from the military as a favor which could, at any moment, go away. It's "unthinkable" that anyone would ever rely on it.

Inertial guidance, though, ought to be unspoofable (even though less accurate than GPS on average). There will certainly be found an explanation for this; it isn't magic.

(Or is it?!)

As an arrr-turnative, you can pay less for more features!

The trick is to not live in California. Let them do somethings, and then the other 49 of us can look at how those somethings went.

And it's still a great place to visit, too!

I can think of at least one legitimate case for someone publishing n books per day, for some pretty large values of n.

Imagine someone has written many books over many years, but they didn't try selling through Amazon (which I must admit, is something I wouldn't predict). Then one day, they decide to start selling their books on Amazon. So on the first day, here's suddenly 20 years worth of books that they're introducing to Amazon's system.

This is Getty Images' way of announcing that they've donated all their images to the public domain. It's altruism, not mismanagement.

There may be things on the road you may not want to hit,

Such as pedestrians?

Oh come on, how much more transparent can this weaponization of government be?! You can't just block the Republican Party from the internet. That's blatantly unconstitutional.

But I thought that 'gender affirming' care was also sterilising

I assume you quickly spotted the obvious error right after posting that. (Why does Slashdot still not allow edits?!) If you let a bunch of boys and girls do what they want, instead of making them do whatever the far left wing State wants, a lot of the boys and girls will fuck each other. After all, cis/straight/whateveryoucallit is still a pretty majority preference.

Not that I don't understand the left's (Republicans') position. The Chinese Communist Party's efforts to micromanage the birth rate are inspiring, and I see why the left favors government centralization over individual liberty. Maybe gender-affirming care gets boys and girls fucking too much, resulting in agricultural demands which exceed that which was budgeted in the Five Year Plan. It is only through austerity that we will make progress!

On the other hand, conservatives and libertarians (Democrats) want to leave it to the market, allowing people to live the lives they want free of tyranny. But who knows if free people will make the choices which support leadership's decisions?

So I can see why Republicans are skeptical. If you affirm peoples' individual choices, the next thing you know, they'll want their own guns and printing presses. Maybe we should expand government's responsibilities to prevent people from following their natural urges if those urges don't comply with State directives.

Why affirm a person's choice, when that choice should be made by a carefully-educated government official? If the plan can't accommodate boys who want to fuck girls, the state should force them to do whatever is needed. Wouldn't you be gay if the government explained they needed you to? Think state-affirming care, not gender-affirming care!