And we shouldn't need a Roku account to watch TV if we don't pay for services.

For me, I don't care about the lyrics as long as I like the song. I have poor hearings.

Assuming the money is still locked up somewhere (no pun intended) that's a return of $4 million per year

I'm not sure that intelligence is the bottleneck of technological (or any other) progress that many people seem to believe it is. I think this is the view of people for whom technology is inscrutable, but most progress is predicated on research, where the biggest bottlenecks are time and the adequate application of resources (and convincing people to give you those resources). It's not clear to me how a "super" intelligent AI would immediately change that, unless perhaps people trusted it implicitly, so it was consequently better able to allocate resources than we do at present.

In any case AI makes mistakes, and there's no reason to believe that mistakes diminish as intelligence increases, so trusting AI as above probably wouldn't be prudent. In other words, reliability/trustworthiness is its own thing, its own obstacle, and only tangentially related to intelligence, if at all. There are highly intelligent liars, for example and conversely, if you give a principled, intelligent person flawed information, they will naturally arrive at flawed conclusions. The quality/trustworthiness of information is just as important (if not more) than the capacity to analyze it intelligently, and the process for establishing the quality of information is through research, not by "being smarter."

Granted, ML algorithms can potentially expedite analysis, but it's still limited by the quality of data, which is not something I believe intelligence can inherently improve. I am open to that possibility; I just haven't really seen anyone explain how that might happen (let alone provide a testable explanation). Most people just wave a magic wand and say smarter = faster.

It can only happen that way because that's the way it happened. I believe that's called confirmation bias.

In any case, we already have access to essentially unlimited energy through fission. Before that we had inexhaustible (on the timeline of centuries) geothermal energy. It wasn't exploited earlier or more extensively because we had hydrocarbons, which were portable and thus doubled as convenient fuel for vehicles. But in the absence of abundant hydrocarbons, we might have developed a more robust electrified transport system. In fact, this was one competing vision back when motorized transport began. The fact that hydrocarbon-based transportation won the day doesn't mean electrified transport was infeasible, or that technological progress would have stagnated.

Progress in the absence of natural repositories of hydrocarbons might have taken longer (on human timescales), but not necessarily, and in any case the difference likely would have been insignificant on geological timelines.

I just use Debian's stable and oldstable. :)

It does more than basic chat. It can have plug ins to add more features.

Pointy haired manager types who don't really understand the difference between the two.

Wow, it is a lot better. Fast, no issues, stable, etc. now?

matrix

Which all in one color laser are the best? Are https://www.costco.com/Catalog... considered good?

Is Linux fully working well in M1 like Intel Macs yet?

Ditto. Also, I don't get the newest models to save money and avoid issues. I don't play computer games and anything demanding so I don't have to keep up so often!

If they lock me out of my computer I'm just going to completely stop using Microsoft products. If I have to use sketchy third party software to use my legal license, fuck Microsoft, I'm done