No, it's really inefficient. In order to be useful for power generation, the three square mile circle it illuminates would have to be completely full of solar panels in order to capture all the energy being reflected. And it it's as bright as the moon, that's about one half millionth as bright as the sun. So those solar panels, assuming no cloud cover, will be operating at one millionth the efficiency of daytime.

Meanwhile, battery technology, particularly for terrestrial power storage, keeps getting better and better. This has zero potential to offset CO2. Which is deeply sad for the science fiction geek in us all, but honestly, right now solar generation technology is starting to feel pretty science-fictiony, so maybe that's okay.

The other thing about saving is that if you can depend on UBI, and it's enough to live on, then that takes the pressure off of individuals saving for retirement. Right now the amount of money people have to save for retirement in the U.S. is actually a problem, because there's no safe place to put that much money. And so we wind up with things like private equity and various other forms of securitization a specific group of which led to the 2008 crisis.

All of these securities are just ways of storing value, but you can't actually store value—value is work. "Stored value" is an obligation that someone else will have to work to pay back: I use my wealth to pay you money to do the work that I need done.

So public support for people who need it is actually the same thing as living off savings, except that living off savings is individual, and public support is collective. So public support can take advantage of the law of averages, and private savings can't. Which massively increases the amount you have to save as an individual to be sure you'll be okay in retirement.

And this motivates wealth inequality, which makes things worse and worse for the people who are creating the value you as a person with a decent amount of retirement savings need done. We've already had people saying "no more taxes" because they don't want to work to pay for other peoples' retirements. This is the same thing, and at some point it either turns into runaway inflation, which means your savings loses its value, or else it turns into regime change, which means who knows what? Right now, it means that a bunch of elected people are just raking in money through fraud, which isn't likely to end well for the rest of us.

It's weird how people think of socialism as being somehow expensive in comparison.

mass media. The problem is the people with wealth captured the media so all debate is effectively canceled. You can only have some of the facts, convenient for a particular point of view, but definitely none of the inconvenient facts for people with wealth, unless it's time for a spectacle. Then it's a rondo, ooh look over there, got the public "got" that one bad actor... who won't really face much except the loss of public face. Well unless they commit the cardinal sin of ripping off the wrong, read: wealthy, people.

As time goes on more and more people are seeing that "AI" is a bad joke hype train. Why? To extract wealth from the public via stock pump and dump and more than a little free "development" money from the government.

I'll believe that the moment the money is in escrow, untouchable by them, unless the service upgrades are canceled before they are started. After all there's a dozen different ways to pass the buck on costs.

I wonder how much free money are they getting from various governments for the projects?

Wealthy people NEVER use their own money. In America it's socialism for the wealthy and rugged individualism for the poor. Wait, why are they pulling that ladder up?

So what are the 500 CVEs?

Their in house system is good at solving problems they write! INCONCEIVABLE!

He wasn't really in the "make a threat department" so much as try to negotiate it out, because he wasn't a moron. He wasn't looking to be stupid and cause a backlash because he understood the financial benefits of trade. He also did not want to threaten the purchases made by partners for NATO treaty obligations. He understood how much money the treaties brought into the USA, in terms of investment, which helped keep the US dollar as the reserve currency and other things.

Trump wants to people to offer bribes, declare they see his greatness, and offer him lots of baubles. You don't do what he wants and he'll just create chaos.

Admiral Josh Painter: "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it." - The Hunt for Red October

I think our, to be polite, mediocre versions of LCARS will be worth something to many people someday. However I do not think it is truly disruptive in the sense of computing or the Internet.

After all, if we can get it to be closer to Star Trek's LCARS, the models will hold the sum of human knowledge in a single accessible system. Hopefully the companies come up with a better interface, but I digress. Should it be the actual sum of human knowledge, in infinitely searchable form, with the user able to adjust the rubber band for search parameters, it could be extremely power tool. They could load data into it and direct it to run a comparative analysis or have students able to access the sum of human history.

Unfortunately, for "AI" companies, the value should crash when the models fail to both be original or wake up. We won't get something like VIKI running the robots at Hyundai factories. Don't get wrong, the Boston Dynamics robots might (probably will) do good things at the factories, but it's not going to do much at first, at least not anytime soon, and I doubt the models will be running them when they are at the factory. So if the robots, cars, and LLM's aren't going to wake up what are they truly worth? When there is no sentience, no original thought, then what is the model worth overall. Not very much at all in comparison.

Of course you don't realize that most airline CEO's would sell their own mother's to get a nearly 2% reduction in fuel costs.

That many CEO's and other business owners see no tangible results or savings with AI...

until some nitwit hides one in a locker room?

until some nitwit hides one in a locker room?

until some nitwit hides one in a toilet?

Most workplaces use centralized print servers before handing the data off to the printer. So technically it isn't the printer spying on you, it's the company's Papercut (or similar) print server. The only way to get around it would be to surreptitiously connect to USB - but then your PC might snitch on you for having a different printer than everyone else, or maybe to use a flash drive - but they aren't allowed in high security facilities.

Yeah, it's pretty much a poison pill. Can you imagine what Thiel / Musk / Karp would say if their data was at risk?

How about any of the police demanding it, or the politicians looking to implement, this stuff?

Considering human nature, my guess is you'll see them flee the proposal. Heck getting cops to wear bodycams is a process. We still need to make obscuring, or muting, bodycams a Class B felony. They can edit / redact information before release IF it's considered something that should be redacted. However the original file with ALL data should be retained, or it's a B Felony.

You are the one who has to deal with the problem. All you have to do is look at Flint to see why it costs so much: We've spent decades ignoring our water system in large swaths of the country so that now we're playing catch up. Look at how many cities still have lead service lines.