My latest vaccine shots had the 6G upgrade, to take advantage of the higher-speed web access when the networks upgrade, but if they're selling those frequencies to high-power carriers, then I won't be able to walk into any area that handles AT&T or Verizon. :P

Seriously, this will totally wreck the 6G/WiFi6 specification, utterly ruin the planned 7G/WiFi7 update, and cause no end of problems to those already using WiFi6 equipment - basically, people with working gear may well find their hardware simply no longer operates, which is really NOT what no vendor or customer wants to hear. Vendors with existing gear will need to do a recall, which won't be popular, and the replacement products simply aren't going to do even a fraction as well as the customers were promised - which, again, won't go down well. And it won't be the politicians who get the blame, despite it being the politicians who are at fault.

Ok, but evolution requires selection as well as variation. Generally one should select several from each generation to modify, and filter out a bunch that don't measure up. (Note that the evaluation function is a very strong determinant of what you'll eventually get.) Selecting "one from each generation" just looks like an extremely bad approach. Perhaps it should read "one batch from each generation".

Not always, but they tend to me more ... project-centered ... than most.

That's a real problem Python has survived Guido's retirement quite nicely, though. But there was lots of pre-planning. I haven't attended to whether such pre-planning is happening in the kernel, but there were a few obvious candidates the last time I looked.

If that's really what they're doing, they're doing it wrong. Probably to save on compute time. Evolution needs a large and varied population to work well.

You underestimate the cost. Even among those that survive for a few generations, most will eventually succumb to changing environmental conditions. Consider trilobites.

OTOH, that's judging by assuming that the present is the correct time-frame to evaluate from. Why should that be true? Trilobites lasted a lot longer than we're likely to. (But we've got the *potential* to last until the heat death...*IF*... But what are the odds?)

It's actually a very good approach. Unfortunately, it depends on having a good and ungameable evaluation function.

Thinking about this more, my first response was so incomplete as to almost be a lie.

You *cannot* know reality. All you can know is a model of reality. So when you say "reality" you're actually using a abbreviation for "in my model of reality".

And when I said "physics is physics" I was so oversimplifying as to almost be lying. Consider "flat earth" vs. "spherical earth". How do you know which belief to accept? The direct sensory data seems to imply that "flat earth" is the more appropriate belief. There are lots of arguments that "spherical earth" is a better model, but those are nearly ALL based on accepting what someone else says. We are told of experiments we *could* do that would validate it, but very few people have, themselves, done the experiment. So for just about everyone the "spherical earth" model is a "social reality".

Similarly I accept that I have a spleen, but I do this because others have told me it's true. I'm also told my tonsils were cut out, but I was unconscious when this was supposed to have happened, so I'm taking other people words for it.

Reality, as we know it, it largely a social construct. We don't know just how completely it's a social construct, but that's hugely what it is.

That's what this article is about.

Reality is largely a social construct, how much nobody knows. (Yeah, physics is physics and biology is biology, but that's not social reality.) What you believe is largely a feedback process, and when one of the sources of feedback is disconnected from reality...beliefs will drift. This is classically known from sailors who ended up marooned on an empty island. They had physical feedback, but no social feedback, and after awhile their beliefs shifted in weird ways. This seems to be a lot faster process, but it's being driven by a feedback system that's disconnected from reality, so that seems plausible. And it seems to avoid negative feedback effects. Systems dominated by positive feedback are known to run out of control.

The thing is, she's "reading from a script". If the script could handle the problem, the "AI"s at the lower levels of the tree would have handled it. What her *purpose* is, often, isn't to solve people's problems, but just to let them blow off steam so they don't quit, or run berserk in the downtown office. This lets the company continue to extract money while providing broken service.

Assuming the answer to you question is "None":
How often to the end-users properly isolate the camera?

I don't think "If used properly, but not in the way most people use it" is a good argument.

Yeah, it's tricky, and probably impossible to do correctly. But corporates have put so much extra power (international treaties!) in copyright law, that there's probably no other way that's nearly as effective. ...
And perhaps this will rein in the excessive strength of copyright law.

That "outside the body" part would seem to mean two heart transplant operations, first to remove the heart and second to reinsert it. It *would* have the benefit of not needing immuno-suppresants for life, But it would mean staying hooked up to a heart-lung machine while the heart was being repaired and healing. That's probably worse than the immuno-suppresants.

He's starting out great with Krypto the Super-Dog!