Seriously... this is the first I've heard of it. At 9:22 pm on 4/15/22.
It's also worth noting that even objectively terrible movie treatments (for example, Soylent Green's failure to represent the actual storyline of Harry Harrison's Make Room, Make Room, while also being cheesy and stupid, and Without Remorse's failure to even remotely resemble Tom Clancy's book, while also being... well, lame) didn't hurt those books.
Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space!
Newton submissively begs scraps from Einstein's table, suh.
No. Leave the fucking books alone.
Protip: Just don't buy into new motion pictures based on books. Your problem, solved! Because as you probably will understand if you give it some thought, the existence of a first-time movie treatment of a book doesn't hurt the related book. Quite the contrary, most often.
For those of us who don't want to see yet another Roadhouse or Bladerunner or Poseidon or Total Recall — and for the authors — new motion pictures based on previously untreated stories are a good thing. At least once they're out on physical media. Movie theaters... [shudders]
Pretty much all tech we have today is entirely possible without burning fossile[sic] fuels
One of the apparent filters is simply that above a certain level of gravity, chemical rockets will not suffice to reach space. We're near the edge of that condition ourselves. Any number of civilizations might be out there, pinned against their planet's surfaces. The only way that's not true is if there are physics yet to be discovered that can accomplish surface-to-space in high gravity without using chemical rockets. We certainly haven't found any sign of such science/technology here. And fission or fusion powered rockets... the engineering for that is at least completely non-obvious thus far. And before anyone says "nukes against a pressure plate", yeah, a delightfully bang-y notion, but no.
The assumption made in the Fermi paradox that any civilization could reach space if they try may simply be wrong.
As there are so many wonderful books out there just begging for a motion picture treatment, Hollywood will oblige by... releasing more pointless, vapid remakes.
Engineers understand things and want to do a good job.
To be fair, you find greedy and thieving engineers too. It's just that being engineers they will realise that you cannot make a system like MCAS and not have it blow in your face within months the first time a bird strikes the one sensor that was keeping everyone on a plane alive.
The main problem with the McDonnel-Douglas suits was not even their greed or shortsightedness focused only on stock price. It's their outright blindness to the technical reality of the business they were running. This happens in so many sectors (I'm certain people in IT will sympathise), but in aviation you get lots of dead people who paid dear money to use your product, and millions others who will be scared of using your products again, causing the company's demise. In most other businesses, these corporate leeches are simply happy to feast on a rotting body, ready to jump onto a new one when the time is right.
NATO risking nuclear war with Russia is the actual short-sighted strategy.
Is there some other strategy that is better? It's hard to see what the "wise" strategy would be for dealing with an aggressive nuclear-armed dictatorship that may or may not be collapsing politically.
Certainly "let Russia do what it wants because they might nuke us otherwise" feels a lot like paying the Dane-geld; as soon as they realized that was our strategy, they'd control us with it.
I often piss people off when I say this, but without humans being killed, war has very little purpose.
The purpose would be to bankrupt your opponent; once they no longer have the resources to manufacture more battle-robots, your robots can march to the capital and take it over.
This is a law that will allow the federal government to take total control of AI forever
No. The tech is already out — this horse is so far out of the barn you'd need a passport and numerous border crossings to even find hoofprints.
Not only is such a law completely unable to regulate GPT/LLM/generative software in the USA's non-commercial software ecosphere, it can have no effect across national borders and you may be absolutely certain that other state actors will simply smile and wave at such ideas (for that matter, you may be certain that the US intelligence apparatus will do the same.)
At home or cloud-based? It is either-or.
Exactly. These marketing twerps no longer know WTF the words they use even mean. If they ever did. Also, using "secure" in the same context with "the cloud"... that's a similar bit of nonsense. When your data leaves your hands, even just crossing the Internet, it's no longer secure. One party can keep a secret. Anything else... can very quickly become not a secret. As we have seen many times. And of course, we should never forget about this.
> MacOS Sonoma 14.4.1.
Running Ventura 13.3.1 here. Perhaps that's it.
Thanks. I'll consider upgrading after I surf the "bugs in Sonoma" stuff.
Is John Cage's famous minimalist piece acceptable?
If not, how will they prevent people from playing it?
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe