And a douche bag of a president who drops bombs next to schools and kills 135 kids . Should resign on the spot for that.

Look up "human shields", the practice of siting military targets among (or in or under) large collections of non-military civilians, in order to deter strikes against them or produce propaganda claims of atrocities when they're attacked anyhow.

In such situations the fault for the "collateral damage" is assigned to the side that set up the arrangement, not the side that hit it.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the US has been trying very hard to use precision munitions and extreme military intelligence to take out military targets with as little harm to the innocents they're embedded among as possible, with impressive success. Compare the amount of collateral damage in this war to any of those conducted in the 20th century.

He's doing the bare minimum sniff test of verifying that *you* are the guy whose name is on the bookings and not someone sneaking in on someone else's name who can't even pronounce the name on your fake id.

At least in the case of people claiming to be returning citizens I've been told that they're comparing your accent to your claimed residence (or residence history).

Different words are acquired at different ages, and many are pronounced with regional variations. An expert can talk to you for a few minutes and come up with a pretty good age-map of where you lived as you grew up. An agent with a modicum of training can detect a mismatch between how you pronounce certain words and your claimed residence and pass you through quickly or keep you around and drill more deeply. (If you now live in an area with a regional accent wildly different from where you grew up it can help to answer a where-do-you-reside question with "Footown, but I grew up in Barstate".)

I presume they are doing something similar, though no doubt with lower resolution, on the world-wide level for visitors from other countries.

Yep, there's a very good reason that engineers poke and prod at things for years before marking something as safe for a life critical area.

LLM-based AI can do some pretty impressive things. It *seems* to answer questions with remarkable accuracy, and it instantly produces code in response to often ridiculously vague input queries:

"Write me an app to track ant farms in Vietnam"

And what do you know? You get something that seems surprisingly useful!

Except that it's all an illusion.

I'm an experienced software developer (25 years now) and I focus on information lifecycle apps targeting workgroups and enterprise - organizations of 50+ people. As I write this, about 20,000 people are concurrently using an app I created.

Over the past year or so, I've been trying to deeply integrate AI into my workflow. It's there when I write code in VSCode, it's there when I write sysadmin/shell code, and it's there when I'm refactoring.

The more I use it, and the "better" it gets, the more frustrating I find it. It's only somewhat useful in the area that most coding projects fail: debugging.

No matter what it seems, LLM-based AI doesn't *understand* anything. It's just an ever-more-clever trickery based on word prediction. As such, it serves only as another abstraction that still must be understood and reviewed by a real person with actual understanding, or the result is untrustable, unstable, and insecure "vibe code" that is largely worthless outside of securing VC funding, which is the thing that AI perhaps does best: help unprepared people get VC funding.

You still need real people to get code you can live with, depend on, and grow with.

A little bit of friction can sometimes be a good thing. At the moment the mentality is to rely on AI as if it was a panacea for everything, and jobs are being lost that shouldn't have gone (there was a /. article about one instance not long ago).
Change is an inevitable, but well managed change takes longer and makes fewer disasters along the way; that's what the Unions are aiming for. Their power in the UK is significant, but not overwhelming enough to stop the march of progress.

There are plenty of AIs that can give medical advice, with the proviso that they're giving that advice to a medical professional, and in a very narrow field for which they're trained (e.g. medical imaging to identify artefacts on images that are of interest, or in planning to contour radiation dose delivery etc.).

There are no generalised AIs out there that offer General Practitioner level medical advice that I'm aware of though, and certainly not licensed to do so (which was what I suspect you were getting at).

It's a hard answer. By stating "You will categorically not be paid if you try to ransom us", you're cutting out the part of organised crime that does stuff for a profit. There will be no profit in attacking a hospital. They will not pay, and you'll take an awful lot of heat for no return (and potentially be liable for any deaths that occur if they eventually catch you, increasing the sentence that's meted out to you).

However, there is still the vulnerability to politically motivated attacks, so safety still isn't assured, it just demotivates regular organised crime that just wants to make lots of money.

Having backups, and having tested backups is pretty much what everyone has.
The critical thing that people are finding is the metric to follow with Ransomware attacks is the Recovery Time for the entire estate. Not one system, but potentially hundreds of interlinked systems that all fail catastrophically at once.
That can take weeks of forensics to work out what's happened (and needs to be done before you can make an effective recovery, otherwise you may find you're back at still being compromised and ransom attacked within minutes of being back online). Then it can take weeks or months to recover and sync all the systems affected.

All the while, your primary business (in hospitals, for example, keeping people alive) is in measures that most likely can't handle the load long term with paper based recording and tracking. They certainly will have difficulty managing planned appointments and making new ones, which is why many business continuity plans have a time scale by which a given system needs to be recovered, or else things go south quickly after that period.

I've read so many people saying "should have had backups", but nobody has considered the time to rebuild from catastrophic failure. Every system and server is down, full restore and recovery to a time before infection (and validation of that).
The company was a transport company with 500 trucks on the road. That's a lot of logistics in play that need to have continuity, each one with cost of probably tens of thousands a day, or more, with heavy non-complete penalties for failure.
Full catastrophic failure can take weeks, or months to perform. In this time, you've haemorrhaged customers, who have had to try and make alternate arrangements where they can (and will likely not be back), no ability to schedule new business, and bills that still need to be paid.

The cash flow can easily drive a low margin business like transport into failure just by the time to recover from a complete loss of function by malicious infection. All the backups may be there, they may even have off site, and have done everything by the book, just the operating company as an entity could easily lose more in the recovery time window than it was possible to financially recover from.

For a long time now, that kind of money has been mainly bandied about in the Sports leagues. Expensive players getting huge signing bonuses to join new teams..
I always wondered what it would take to get that kind of money for the scientists; looks like there's finally something that people really want to spend their cash on.
IT may only be for a short time (after all, anologously to sport, there is likely to be a short window of opportunity for this kind of cash, so you may find it's a short career, but if you invest well, it can last you a lifetime to do what you want afterwards), but it's good to see.

I suspect it's also a sign that the big players also see it as a limited time deal, with AI starting to tail off and stabilise as a tool in the not too distant future (5, maybe 10 years if that), and the disruption settling down into a newer way of operating. They're just going all out at the moment to get the best talent to be in the big player stakes when that happens (if it does; there's still no guarantee, but it's an interesting gamble).

It's the planning, and designing the equipment to let the jump happen.
Without the jump, all that wouldn't have happened (for a while at least).
Him stepping up, and actually doing it, advanced knowledge and engineering, proving that it could be done. Not a huge advance, but definitely a tiptoe in a new direction.

So, you would have the young vote against their own interests to help the aged (who really do need help) as well?
Everyone votes with what they believe will work best both for themselves and for everyone. Believing that just because someone votes other than the way you think they ought to shows that you have a massive bias. I've literally voted for every major party in the UK, all based on manifestos of what they say they're going to attempt to do, on the basis that I think that manifesto makes the most sense for the state of the country at the time.

Honestly don't care if there's been a GenX president, as I'm not from the USA. I'm fairly sure there will be at some point.

The ability to derail a train if you hit the rear brakes while the engine is going full out. The system is designed to safely apply rear brakes at the same time as the forward brakes, ensuring the whole of the train experiences a braking effect.

The courses used to be fully funded by a grant here in the UK. All you needed was to have the academic credentials to get in, and that was the tough part. About 15% of people went on to higher education (in the early 80s); the theory was that over your working life, you'd more than repay to the government in taxes what was spent on your training for your reasonably "high flying" job. Which was fairly true.
The wonderful thing about that was that selection was entirely on how academically competent you were (rather than practically competent, which was more for vocations and apprenticeships); it opened up social mobility quite nicely.

Then more courses were added. with increasingly niche and impractical subjects, many of which had a handful of hours of lectures a week, and by the mid 90s, about 25% of the school leavers went to University. The government decided it could no longer afford to send all these people to Uni, so introduced Student Loans instead of Grant, which had the immediate effect of starting to dissuade the poorer (though sometimes academically gifted) people from going to Uni.
Then after that in 1998 came tuition fees which needed to be paid (introduced by a Labour government, who were the last ones anyone would think would do this due to the chilling effect on social mobility that the extra financial encumbrance brought).

As parents weren't used to the eye-wateringly high cost of higher education that existed in places like the US, there was only so much that could be politically asked of people to pay, so course fees were capped. Still too expensive for poor, and quite a millstone around the necks of recent graduates.

All the increased degree taking (around 50% of the UK population now have degrees by the time they're 30) means degrees aren't worth what they were, and command far less salary, rendering them not such a great pathway (except you now almost need a degree to flip burgers in McDonalds).

Seeing as there's a limited amount of people you can funnel through the degree channel, and the cap definitely hasn't been keeping up with inflation, then something needs to give. Fixed costs of buildings and utilities remain the same, so the only factor left is to reduce the courses and the academic staff involved with those (fewer courses means fewer administrators, along with fewer lecturers).
I don't think most families see the allure of vastly higher tuition fees that would allow Universities to continue in their current mode, as the return on investment simply isn't there. Apprenticeships are starting to find the appeal that they used to have (two of the most successful youngsters that I know did Engineering apprenticeships, and are now on salaries not far short of mine, while I know a boatload of Degree graduates with crippling debt over their heads, and without the grounding to do a role that would pay that back in any comfortable timespan.

Couple this with the financial crash of 2009 (which is having a generational financial impact) and COVID (which will definitely be having a generational financial impact), there really isn't the money anywhere to pass along to these institutions.

No, in general, they don't.. The old tend to try and look out for the young, and help where they can.. That's been my experience anyway..