Anyhow, there's nothing wrong with settling on the side.

They wanted it sitting upright so the upper deck would be shallow enough that recreational divers could reach it easily and have a decent amount of time on site. It would also be safer sitting upright because the superstructure creates a minimum of overhangs that way. Diving in an overhead environment is much more dangerous. Finally, ships are designed to sit upright. They deteriorate and collapse faster when they're on their sides, which would put the shallowest part of the ship even deeper.

Guess what - we're stuck with that guy.

You're stuck with him because a large enough proportion of the voters, acting through their elected representatives, don't think its worth getting rid of him. Nvidia's voters, acting through their elected representatives, will make the same decision: is his value to the company greater or less than the damage from the bad PR he's brought.

So you're literally saying that doing that high-status men have been doing for thousands of years is worse than getting caught shagging a Chinese spy?

"OMG! I just discovered Rich Guy is having a fling with his secretary!" would have been met with a shrug until only a few years ago. No-one cared because they knew women often got jobs as secretaries in the hope that their boss would fall for them.

Now we're supposed to believe it's the end of the world and we must destroy successful companies over it.

What a sad, tired society we live in.

Men have never cared about this stuff unless their wife or daughter was involved because they know high-status men have harems.

It's only in the last few decades we're supposed to tut and twirl our bow-ties when men do what men do.

It's a consequence of the weakness of 20th century men. The only women who care are the ones who know they're not pretty enough to get banged by billionaires.

Map of agricultural production changes in the nuclear winter following a minor nuclear exchange, posted for no particular reason.

(For a full-scale exchange...)

Also, for no particular reason, a map of Russia's population distribution, alongside a reminder of Russia's nuclear missile failure rate, particularly booster failures. And that nuclear warheads have been commonly lost disturbingly often even during peacetime, with at least seven weapons from four incidents lost in flight landing in a way that left them fully intact and easily reparable, just from the US alone. And that Ukraine is rich in nuclear engineers, including still some retirees who worked in the Soviet nuclear weapons programme.

There's also this myth that "if you just use a nuclear weapon, you automatically win the war". Nuclear weapons are immensely effective terror weapons, but their effectiveness on the front is a lot weaker than most people think. People on frontlines tend to be in trenches, bunkers, basements, armoured vehicles, etc, and can be surprisingly close to a tactical nuclear blast while still surviving. They're effective against hard points but struggle against a broad, diffuse front (aka, today's front, which is a sparsely populated, deep, amorphous zone, thanks to drones). Amortizing Russia's estimated budget for tactical nuclear weapons comes up with ~$15-25M per weapon (not counting the delivery system), so they're hardly a dime a dozen either.

IF, via terror bombing or threats of terror bombing, you can convince your enemy to surrender, then congratulations, you have won (enjoy your nuclear waste heap and restive population who wants nothing more than to kill you). If they do not, however, their only goal remaining will be to focus 100% on using their extensive nuclear waste supplies rich in plutonium, their extensive long-range strike weapon supplies, and their extensive metallurgical experience, to render your major cities to ash in the same way that you did theirs.

(I also just assume herein that Ukraine doesn't actually have a secret nuclear weapons programme already, which is certainly an assumption).

I look forward to the unplanned broadcast of Swan Lake.

Gmail killed mailing lists, sadly. The introduction of the now ubiquitous "conversation view" way of displaying emails really made mailing lists awkward and unworkable. Also Gmail would silently delete your own messages that got echoed back from the list so you couldn't ever be sure your message had even reached the list. I still mourn the death of real message threading.

It was also about this time that email in general started to become an ineffective way to communicate. Top posting pretty much indicated and ensured that anyone responding to your email never actually read your email. I blame the downfall of civilization on lazy top posters.

This was my experience too. The forum was full of topics were none of the fanboys had any solutions to the problems and the only posts were other people having the same problem. Crickets from anyone at Apple. I don't think any Apple bug was ever fixed because of a forum post.

An AI chat bot might be more useful than those forums were. At least the chat bot can express empathy for your problems, even if it also has no solution.

To be clear: you can still totally argue about qualia, sentience, things of that nature. What is not up for debate is that they work through unimaginably-complex chains of logical reasoning on superpositions of conceptual states and engage in forward-planning and metacognition. These are just demonstrable facts.

There is no 'sentiment' in an LLM or internal state equivalent to 'thinking' anything.

Yes, there is.

How long till all of this is weaponized? Robots hunt you from building to building. Picture this but armed and less friendly looking.

They've all pretty much converged into being same thing so the choice is more what colour you prefer for the logo.

No, it's called "Evidencing The Fact That It's A Widespread Shorthand" (in specific, among Wikipedians, where it's in official terminology as well), a widespread usage that was falsely claimed to not exist.

(I'll also take this opportunity to note: rage about the use of shorthand on "copyvio", but not a word about "algos")

Shorthand should be something that other people actually use

Okay Felicia.

TL/DR: "copyvio" is the Wikipedia-standard shorthand for copyright violation, used both in direct speech and in official templates. If a person says "copyvio", they've probably spent a lot of time hanging out at Wikipedia, where copyright violation is a frequent topic of discussion.

I'm sorry if shorthand offends your sensibilities. Should I spell out all shorthand for you? Maybe make sure I only use emdashes instead of "-" while I'm at it?