That doesn't seem to be in the Debian repository. (I don't have my Algol documentation anymore anyway, but once upon a time...)

But I meant Algol-60, which was the only version that was ever widely used.

Well, when I went looking for an Algol compiler, I didn't find it. But perhaps I just needed to look outside the repositories.

What about "Don't write your stuff while wearing a plaid shirt."?
If the rules can't be enforced honestly, they shouldn't be present. And rules against AI can't be enforced honestly unless you hold the contest in a sealed room with no remote access.

The problem is that the context of the pre-2020 works will become continuously more dated. I can't stand most Victorian fiction, even Sherlock Holmes is weak outside of the short stories. Historical fiction really needs to be written from a viewpoint assuming the current context...which means it becomes dated. And this also works, though less powerfully, in the realm of fantasy.

IIUC, the human variant of that gene (FOX P2) is NOT shared with other extant species. But it also seems true that there were lots of other changes associated with it.

Undoubtedly the origin of the Hobbit-steals-dragons-treasure meme.

Saying it "gave us our next-level language abilities", but it does seem necessary for them. I really doubt that it is sufficient. (But we could insert one into a Chimpanzee or Bonobo to check.)

I think you mean, "so the middle men can pocket the savings".

Rep. Curt Weldon : Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.
...
But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it., Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is. Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a coming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.

That one can probably be handled (temporarily) just by using a longer key. Which can give you time to do the switch.

The problem is that there's a lot of stuff already recorded that can't be protected that way.

That said, what quantum computers should really be good at is material design, quantum modelling, etc. But they need to be quite a bit stronger. (OTOH, DWave sells a specialized quantum computer that's reported to do a decent job in it's particular niche. It's just not a general computer. IIUC, it only handles relaxation problems.)

FWIW, people for the most part evolved without cooking their food. We've been evolving since long before the dinosaurs.

OTOH, they didn't actually decide that "burnt food kills you", they decided that it increased some risks. I've never seen any evidence that this was wrong.

I think it was actually a reference to Revelations, though IIRC, that was supposed to be a mark both on the forehead and on the wrist.

YOU might think of it as a boycott, but I think of it as "self-protection". I avoid Musk's products for self protection...that I also hope it harms him at least a trifle is a minor additional bonus...and it doesn't matter if it doesn't.

The use-case for Concorde on trans-Atlantic passage was cemented for me when my uncle explained that every time he flew from NYC to London to talk to investors about his company, the stock price went up far more than the cost of his trip on the Concorde, and he could be back in time to sleep in his own bed the same day.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm pretty sure (as others have pointed out) that if it weren't for the Continental-caused accident, the Concorde would likely have flown an additional decade.

Looking at current travel, there is enough demand to pack planes on BOS/NYC-SFO, SFO-HND, etc. routes that I'm sure there's enough business money to pay for supersonic service.