No, you decided to throw a reference that required interpretation, hoping the reader was aware of Rummy and his views on information. Fortunately I was, and you can't test a negative case you don't know about, that's why it's an unknown unknown. If I were a known unknown, there are lots of tests.

Unknown unknowns are part of the bet unfortunately - DD is done reasonably rapidly, things do get missed naturally - usually it's a synergy category error in retrospective analysis. But given it's a blend of people, technology, culture in org - and these can't be neatly tied with a bow like coding. You can go and read your AI's code and correct it, an acquisition or disposal doesn't have such surety - judgement is needed. And that judgement sometimes does fail.

In what sense?

It's done the same with due diligence work to be honest. Once we researched, now we double check the outputs and so really all it has done is move the work from one bin to another.

Privately owned factories (like my families, now closed) was a bomb target in World War 2. It never actually got hit but there were attempts. So the idea of bombing companies is as old as industrial warfare.

It's a large craft that requires special handling beyond what many airports can support, much like the Panama canal. It was an analogy, not a reference directly to any particular systemic issue facing the aircraft.

Depends on the route - there are some that make it a highly desirable airframe. But they are definitely far fewer than they need to be. It's not correct to contrast with Concorde - that was always a prestige vehicle, it never made any meaningful dent in passenger-carry terms. A380 is a post-Panamax vessel in a Panamax world.

Don't confuse thinking with solvency!

Doesn't work.

How do we know the public timeline is the true one?

And went straight for a landing. Only then will you have American's talking like one of this weeks Jeopardy clues.

mIRC burned its "lifetime" users years ago and that has been instructive ever since. Companies and individuals simply don't honour their promises.

It'll be bad. We'll lose a lot. But it won't cause outright extinction. Pockets will survive and life will find a way.

24 months to deliver an ROI - or the wheels on the bus start coming off. Especially given the additional commodity expenses we now face. That doesn't mean AI will disappear - it's way too useful for that - but it will see a rationalisation. Railway Mania ultimately led to latter rationalisation and branch lines closed. So I suspect it will be for datacentres. Costs of use will go up, quality in narrower fields will improve, the race for generalised AI will cease. We rather got ourselves into a heavy lift race - AGI was no Moon to capstone the race.

NYT style guide says it should be written as NATO. London Times however guides you to write Nato.