Who buy stock in small pharma firms before and FDA announcement. It's just gambling by other means.

Get where they are coming from, but isn't this the event where people deliberately infringe on boundaries through things like penetration testing? Guess it's just a question of who pen tests whether you can get glasses with a camera into the event.

So many features are being built that no one cares about - what committee sat down and waved through crosswords being part of the browser? Why not integrate Stockfish and have a Chess app too? Or alternatively... make the browser better for, and I know this is absolute heresy, browsing?

All this chat about the vulnerabilities they exploit - we can either let it happen and actually improve the defenses based on what is learned, or we can "cry ban" and pretend stuff that clearly may be vulnerable is invulnerable. I think ultimately it would be better to uncover the flaws, and rectify them than work on a belief-we-doubt because AI's have demonstrated flaws in things we wish to pretend are pristine and perfect.

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.