alter ego George Costanza work at Meta?

So let me get this straight. They sold data they shouldn't have for $20 million. They settled for $12.75 million. So they made a profit of $7.25 million. So what exactly is the incentive for them not to do this again? They don't make as much as they want if they get caught, but they still make money. This is how you encourage companies to do this, not discourage them.

only outlaws will have weed-free landscaping?

Plenty of trucks and other vehicles have little or any effective view directly out the back. To be blunt: If you need to look through your rear-view mirror to not kill someone, you either need better side mirrors or you need to learn to drive.

My guess is that the issue is the chance of the line being tangled in something. If there are trees around, a gust of wind could easily blow the line (with or without package) into the trees. You also have to leave the package somewhere out in the open as there would be no way to put in on a covered porch.

Wasn't Freeman Dyson at least skeptical of ever bigger and better particle accelerators as reaching diminishing returns on the amount of physics knowledge gleened per dollar spent.

Forget Freeman Dyson. Hasn't anyone taken ECON 101 as a college freshman and remember "diminishing marginal returns." And forget the harm to the environment, isn't the outragious electric bill a sign of more and more resources thrown at something to "scale it up" without considering where the scaling law levels off?

What is the revenue model? Selling what you disclose to the AI?

Or will anything beyond the most brain-dead AI be a big monthly subscription?

Will your employer insist that you not use their paid-for AI for personal use in the way of Cyber Monday that you weren't supposed to use your work Internet to purchase your Christmas presents but people did this anyway?

Or will AI gradually become useless owing to who pays the most coin to train the neural networks a certain way, becoming useless like Web search?

What are the chances that the robot was being controlled by a human and not AI? There have been a lot of "demos" of AI robots that it turns out is a guy in another room controlling it. If I had to bet money, that is what was happening here as well.

This shows the real issue with AI. It isn't in the AI itself, but the people using it. I don't have an issue with them using AI to try and identify the suspect when they are having a hard time doing so. But you can't just take what AI says and assume it is correct and act on it. AI is a tool and needs to be used as such. When it gives you something, it is up to the people to actually check out what it says and follow up on it. People are using AI as if it is the answer but it is just a tool to try and get to the real answer and that is the part that people are ignoring.

The Heliocentric Theory had a problem with a negative result for the parallax of stars. Think of it as the Michelson-Morley result of its day.

This is why Tycho Brahe rejected the Copernican interpretation, the best observational astronomer of his day--he couldn't measure any shift in stellar positions as the Earth went around the Sun. No one had the imagination that the nearest stars were so freakin' far away.

You are putting WAY to much thought into this. Yes, it was not a fancy double blind study, but there are 4 separate files and 4 things they could be assigned to. Anyone with 2 brain cells would listen and assign what they though was the best quality to the original. Then to the one run through the audio cable. Then the banana followed by mud. They fact that at minimum the mud and banana didn't stand out says what you need to know about the quality.

There are other large horse body parts.

I started using Google Gemini to evaluate applications of transfer students for credit for specified courses at my university.

What a person in my role is supposed to do is email faculty colleagues teaching the course in question, but good luck with that. A faculty member wants such requests to just go away. Even if you know the contents of a course you have taught for years, how do you know that Cow College's offering is anywhere close?

The AI not only has a lot to say on how equivalent a pair of courses, if it is just making stuff up, I don't see how it can be worse than what my colleagues say.

Maybe if I don't call attention to what I am doing, no one will notice the difference. Maybe it is an improvement. A grad student turned in a form and left out which courses they wanted credit for. It came to me but requesting an undergrad-level course, and this topic is in the "wheelhouse" of the student's PhD advisor who approved. I sent it back that my "research" indicates that the course taken at MIT is advanced-graduate level at our Cow College and suggested an advanced grad level course here that according to the AI is a "great match."

I sent this back to the student--is the student going to complain?

It could happen.

Not recognizing each other at the liquor store and where these gadgets are sold?