Every change looks like corruption in the eyes of people who don't like it.

And corruption looks like evolution to some people.

Personally, I'm in favor of words meaning as much of the same thing over time as possible. It enhances communication and understanding. If you need a new meaning, you either need a new word or you need to explain yourself at a bit more length. Lest you "decimate" (cough) the listener's/reader's understanding... you get me?

So what makes you sure there is nothing reacted against in a different propellantless drive? Even if you don't know what it is.

Again, not that I think the drive in TFA is going to actually produce thrust.

Now run the numbers for an electric motor where the rotor is a satellite with an electromagnet and the stator is the Earth.

Note carefully that I am not claiming the propellantless drive in TFA actually does anything but get warm (if that), just that a theoretical propellantless drive need not intrinsically violate thermodynamics.

The next issue is on the American corporate side. More and more people are noticing the ludicrously low prices of things if they buy direct from china and wondering why the same thing made in the same place by the same people costs so much more when bought from a U.S. company.

Not barge in, tell the company to fix it or they put out a press release denouncing the company and it's executives by name as a threat to national security.

Alas, no. Apple's users in China are getting the ones having to taste the medicine.

Credentialism doesn't help. At one time, those with the right kind of mind tended to learn on a C64, Atari, or perhaps an Apple][ and then got a job. Before that, interested people took an aptitude test and got on the job training.

Now HR is all about the degree and some keywords.

I'm a little confused by who is supposed to be caving to the threat here. It's a paid database, so I assume that Thompson-Reuters/Refinitiv aren't thrilled; but it was apparently stolen from one of their customers, not directly from them, so their reputation for security competence isn't really affected; and I suspect that most of the people paying for access to this sort of database need something authoritative that ticks the "I'm really trying to know my customer, really" box when feds or auditors come around; so even a reasonably fresh and reasonably large leak is still of limited value("So, you decided to reduce costs by basing your compliance efforts on data of unknown completeness, potentially subject to unknown modifications, sourced from unknown criminals? Very interesting...") as an alternative to continuing to subscribe.

If anything, it seems like its release would be largely positive: probably lots of interesting leads to be followed up, both with regard to what the creepy data broker types know and the things they know about the people they consider relevant, by people who are in no position to afford access normally(if it's even something you can just purchase if your money is green enough; rather than being offered specifically to potential customers known to be in financial services; not just anyone with a checkbook).

LLMs cannot do it. Hallucination is baked-in.

LLMs alone definitely can't do it. LLMs, however, seem (to me, speaking for myself as an ML developer) to be a very likely component in an actual AI. Which, to be clear, is why I use "ML" instead of "AI", as we don't have AI yet. It's going to take other brainlike mechanisms to supervise the hugely flawed knowledge assembly that LLMs generate before we even have a chance to get there. Again, IMO.

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong. No sign of that, though. :)

I'll be impressed when one of these ML engines is sophisticated enough to be able to say "I don't know" instead of just making up nonsense by stacking probabilistic sequences; also it needs to be able tell fake news from real news. Although there's an entire swath of humans who can't do that, so it'll be a while I guess. That whole "reality has a liberal bias" truism ought to be a prime training area.

While I certainly understand that the Internet and its various social media cesspools are the most readily available training ground(s), it sure leans into the "artificial stupid" thing.

Good additional info, thank you.

It died when Broadcom pulled it's stunt. It's still in use, so zombie. Only, instead of "brains!", it's moaning "money!".

What makes you sure it's Inconel? It wasn't a high stress or high temperature part.

Heâ(TM)s arguably not wrong that VMwareâ(TM)s offerings outside of their core product are kind of inchoate(though, in fairness, itâ(TM)s not like the âhyperscale cloudâ(TM) guys donâ(TM)t all have a stable of shit thrown at the wall to see what sticks that surrounds the core of services that people actually care about or trust); but that seems like a pretty shabby excuse in this context; where it would have been trivial to just not fuck with what people were using and liked while making the alleged investments in glorious future VMware; then letting the value proposition of that help sell it.

As it is, itâ(TM)s hard to read this as anything other than an awkward(and almost certainly temporary, nobody ever genuinely stops trying to boil the frog once they start); climbdown after recklessly spooking more customers, harder, than intended.

At the least "buying" the software meant you can use it for as long as you could find a machine to run it on.

The big push of corporate america these days is to deepen the poverty cycle by turning everything into a rental.

Silly me, I thought "nobody owns anything" was part of the Communist plot.