What seems so strikingly pathetic is just how ordinary the attack is; but it sailed right through because "AI" hype seems to do some mixture of attracting drooling idiots and convincing people who ought to know better that if they don't abandon everything in the race for minimum viable product someone else will get to securitize the omnibrain forever.

Random guy just sent a pull request to Amazon's project and they were "OK, seems cool" and added it. That's how an idiot child would think a supply chain attack would work; except it turns out that it actually does.

And then, of course, they scrubbed it without a changelog or a CVE; because the memory hole is a totally viable communications strategy.

Does "The bias is in favor of clean athletes: that you can be clean and win' actually follow in any way from the discussion of various bike, itinerary, and diet optimizations that would presumably also be helpful to people shot full of veterinary hormones or whatever; or is this just Tygart saying what his job requires?

I'm definitely not a cycling strategist; but the various optimizations described sound like they are either neutral(like lower drag frames), or potentially even more helpful if you can find a way to sneak a few drugs in(like tighter diet control and better route planning that would potentially reward the ability to make quick metabolic adjustments under specific circumstances); none of those changes sound like they are skewed in favor of baseline users specifically.

> And during that time your car charges back up to 80%

In five minutes every four hours? Sounds like you're already in the future.

And you do understand what a meta study is? You have to go through all 32 analyzed studies to look how they corrected for other factors (of which age is just one). What they did is, they accessed how those 32 studies corrected for possible bias (not only selection bias).

But for you, here a relevant quote:

Or just you not being able to click on the actual study.

No. I am just reading The Lancet.

Because you are reading a Guardian article, not the study.

Then the Google Street View camera is violating privacy. The problem is with Google Street View. Just because you can does not mean it's legal.

For some reason, I tend to believe that the authors of the meta study have corrected for those effects.

A 6'5" does provide privacy, and someone in a large van taking pictures from above is just a peeping tom.

I don't drive 600 miles without stopping. I could, however, completely understand not refueling in that time.

I expect to stop after about an hour or two on the road to use the toilet. After that, about every 4 hours until I'm there. I don't know if you've done much driving in the US, but the vast majority of our highways don't have service plazas such as are common in most of Europe. You actually have to exit the highway and find a gas station (or, if EV, charger). The only Tesla Supercharger in my area is in a place that makes sense from the company's perspective (fringes of an outlet mall parking lot, ready access to high-power lines), and yes, we all have GPS now, but it's decidedly not a minor detour to get to. From getting into the exit lane from the highway to being at the charger is a solid five minutes' drive each way, during which time you will pass two large truck stops that have all the amenities that long-haul truckers need (showers, e.g.) as well as a large selection of snacks and drinks, which the Supercharger doesn't - you'll have to walk to the outlet mall's food court. And once you're at the charger, it's outside and uncovered. Enjoy baking your car in the sun or soaking yourself if it's raining.

Anyway, the whole point from my perspective about insane range isn't how often I use it fully. I don't use up the 600-mile range of my wife's car (what we use for trips) fully, but 600 miles at ~80 mph with air conditioning or heating on probably corresponds to an 800-mile theoretical max range (at most-efficient speed, no climate control used). It's that I can count on 3/4 of that without worrying about it. And since you're going to protect your battery by keeping it between 10-80% most of the time, you're already limiting yourself to 70% of total capacity for typical driving.

I agree that charging that was as fast as fueling an ICE car would go a long way to mitigating that issue, but I still don't want every single bathroom stop to be 15-20 minutes (exit highway, drive to station, fuel/charge, drive to highway, get back on) when they could be ~5 minutes at a rest stop that just has bathrooms, not gasoline. Nor, once I've settled in for some serious miles, do I want to be forced to stop every 2.5-3 hours.

Only at first, because fire fighters had first to learn how to extinguish them. But in the last years, there have been lots of improvements, and 40 gas car fires are creating a lot more damage than one EV fire today.

And still, more people die in gas car fires than in EV car fires. Gas cars are far more likely to catch fire in an accident than EVs, where most of the fires happen during charging, when no one sits in the car anyway.

Guam exists, as I can travel there. Oh well. It does not mean that I want to move there, because right now, nothing compels me to do so.

Of course are those questions important to Mercedes, because they influence the marketability of cars powered by those batteries. If the insurance premium is too high, buyers will opt for other vehicles where the premium is lower.

In general, per mile driven, gas powered cars burn about 40 times as often as EVs, and the real culprits are hybrids, which burn 60 times as often. And that are the numbers from insurance companies, which have to foot the bill. But how often do you hear from pundits how dangerous hybrids are compared to normal gas powered cars? Hybrids are now so ubiquitous, that people have accepted their existence. The same will happen to EVs, and fire fighters and insurance companies will find relief because car fires are not really an issue anymore, as the dangerous moving gas grenades are slowly fading from the roads.

No, except you count the Xiongnu Empire, which was larger in size, but by far smaller in population.

All larger empires came later.