To your point, I must be better than Tesla's Autopilot (and the "average human" you mentioned) as I've never crashed any of my cars in 44+ years of driving several hundred thousand miles

This is obviously, and statistically, correct.

Which makes you a poor judge of how good self driven cars are. Unless you ride with other more average drivers a lot.

Autopilot *is* fewer, but some have been really bad

Almost all the worst ones have found to be caused by humans. Again, vastly better than human drivers where really bad, is REALLY bad.

Chernobyl was cheaper. How did that work out?

It wasn't cheaper. It was just super badly run. You can have the most expensive thing in the world and blow it up with bad management.

Like driving? :-)

Not sure why you put a smiley there as Tesla self-driving is already better than the average human.

More to the point, I'm sure there will *always* be things machines can't actually do cheaper, easier and/or better than humans.

Name one, and I'm sure you'll find someone online to argue the other side.

Machines may not be better at some things than the top 0.01% of people doing them. But better than "People" at just about anything, yes. And cheaper too considering the upkeep a human takes.

More like what MS said about the Windows Phone with MS holding a "funeral" for the iPhone in 2010. Thirteen years later Apple only sold 231M iPhones in 2023 while MS sold . . . let me check the numbers again . . . 0 Windows Phones.

I don't have much faith in MS when it comes to laptops especially with their own hardware. Remember this isn't Windows first ARM laptop. The first MS Windows on ARM laptop was in 2011. They performed poorly and could not really run x86 code. It wasn't until Apple released the M1 Macs in 2020 that Apple showed MS and the world how to run x86 code on ARM chips.

And your denial when you have nothing continues. Read the cases cited. Read the state laws. Present a counter precedent. Every one of your posts is how you don't have to do anything. You never had a case. All you have had is your arrogance that you were right regardless of nothing, your ignorance of the multiple cases and state law I presented, and your dishonesty in what has been stated.

Citing court cases and state law which destroy your points is "citing a mantra". Again you don't understand anything about law. The story is about a lawsuit.

Again you are trying to use any excuse not to actually read the court cases are you? It does not matter with what "emotionality" I do or do not cite court cases and state laws, they still exist. There are such things as facts which you refuse to acknowledge.

What are you talking about? I have cited court cases. I have never uttered any of those words. You're just lying.

So it shuts down abstract thinking to maximize reflexive behaviour.

Again, read the court cases. Read the state laws. You keep talking about "behaviour" because you have nothing else.

What are you talking about? I keep citing court cases to you and you keep talking how emotional my posts are fulling ignoring the actual substance.

In all these posts you have yet to make any arguments about how those precedents apply or do not apply. This is the first time you have even acknowledged that multiple citations were made. You kept complaining about one of the citations. But please cite your precedent on how those factors. Hint: they don't. You just made it up.

Again, your only response has been "No I don't believe that." You have yet to present anything other than your opinion. You have cited no opposing cases. You have cited no opposing statutes. Please cite one case or statute that supports your position. Your answer: "I don't have to do anything."

How this works in law if a precedent is cited is the other side must present why the precedent does not apply. The other side doesn't say, "Nuh uh." Present a counter. You have not. Instead you refuse to do so.

Present a stronger precedent. You have not. You keep sticking with the position you don't have to present anything. Also you seem to ignore I cited state laws.

No, that's not how it works. If one side present a precedent and the other side presents nothing which you have done, the court does not make the first side present a different precedent. Also you seem to ignore I cited state laws.

Again, you have presented nothing. Up until this point you have refused to acknowledge that multiple cases and state laws were presented. Arrogance, ignorance, and dishonesty seems to be your mantra.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding what the software is supposed to do. It isn't supposed to allow court records to be altered. It allows endpoints to upload recordings, etc. to a central server. The issue is someone screwed up building an installer for the client software that runs on the endpoints, so it installs some kind of malware. Since these endpoint computers have Internet access, the malware can communicate with its command and control network. The concern is that this could alter the recordings, etc. before it's uploaded to the server, tainting court records.

1) Dude I posed multiple citations. I guess you are not smart to understand what the word "multiple" means. 2) There is no "proving" in law. Law is not math. There is precedent which was cited. The fact you don't understand that underscores your ignorance. 3) I posted state laws which state the exact same point I have been trying to make which again you are too dumb or arrogant to understand: Name, image, and likeness requires permission.

I have cited multiple cases and state laws. At this point, you are just lying like you always do. All you have is your excuse of "emotionality" because you have presented nothing. Arrogant, ignorance, and dishonesty.

See, we as a species were too unruly for the World Government to fully control during the last pandemic. Some countries didn't even require masks!

So by "prepare", they plan to install Running-Man style explosive collars on every human on Earth, so that at last we will all comply.

So what's the disagreement? Well you see, some government groups want the collars to be purple, and others black. Until they can come to an agreement I guess the lot of us will have to remain sadly un-controlled.

1) This is in English. 2) Terminology in a particular field was created by people in that field. In computer science, the term "hard drive" could be known as as "spinning platters of mostly aluminum covered in iron or cobalt." Most people use the term "hard drive".

By accurate are you asking for the error measurements in each and every observation over the last hundred years? They are listed in each paper. Or do you mean that overall, we have over a hundred years of observations from dozens of papers in Dr Becky's video alone that it is only 5% of the known universe?

I think you mean to ask how much of matter is luminous (stars) vs non-luminous (planets, asteroids, dust, etc). Total observable matter which includes luminous and nonluminous matter is 5%. To be clear, dark matter does not mean non-luminous matter. Planets, asteroids, and dust react with light as they can block it. One method that has been used to find the thousands of exoplanets is to observe when light from a distant star drops slightly and periodically most likely due to a planet (transit method). Light on the other hand passes through dark matter.

Considering the fact that better and better scientific equipment have led to the 95% estimation, I would say highly unlikely that a new telescope would undo all of that. And by better equipment I specifically detailing: probes, telescopes, and instruments and not just telescopes.

The other thing is the practical sense of the numbers. Baryonic matter is estimated to be 5%. 27% is dark matter. If that dark matter is just nonluminous matter, there would have to be 5X as much mass that somehow has escaped all observations.

Let's take our solar system as an example. The Sun is 1.9885×10^30 kg. The largest planet Jupiter is 1.8982×10^27 kg. The Sun is about 1047 Jupiters. If all dark matter is just non-luminous matter (5x), that would mean our solar system would require over 5000 Jupiters to correct for dark matter discrepancy. Accounting for all other planets, asterioids, and dust in the solar systems is not even close to 1 Jupiter. This would have to be true for every star system; however, all those extra planets and baryonic would definitely block out way light which it does not..

Michio Kaku says that only a tiny percentage (5%) of the universe is normal matter and energy. 95% is dark matter and dark energy. Does that satisfy your appeal to authority?

You literally described dark matter but somehow refuse to use the term. Dark matter is nonbaryonic matter that is only detected by the presence of gravity but does not react in other ways like to light. That's like me saying I don't have a Toyota "truck". My Tacoma is just a coupe that is higher than other passenger cars and it has a flatbed in the back. Never mind what everyone else designates my vehicle as a truck.

What warmth can these planets emit? You assume that this rogue planet is like Earth with an active thermal core. They could be more like Pluto and be just a rock floating in space. Also while it is not bound to a star, that does not mean that nearby stars will drown out any IR signal that it could emit.

I would assume that physicists have already accounted for that. 95% of the universe is unexplained means that it cannot be explained by rogue planets. The number of these planets would have to be so large that most of the universe is made up of rogue planets instead of stars which can be seen. That also does not fit into the Big Bang theory on how matter is distributed. It is contracted by the mass distribution confirmed by multiple cosmic background radiation surveys.

In most "free" countries, court records are public unless there is a pressing need to close the court. Transparency is seen as key to ensuring people are receiving fair trials.