If you open the case, you'll let the hackers in!

The Paris Accord is completely voluntary with each nations limits, set by that nation. If we don't link the limits we set for ourselves, then we just don't have to follow them.

But I want to believe.

As the article explains, the data is not a direct stand-in for sales data. But do to the breadth and volume of the set, it is a reasonable representation of popularity. If something is more popular, there's generally more of it.

It may be hyperbole, but if AMD is gaining market share at the expense of Intel, "stealing" is a word for it.

So people are buying new hardware and benchmarking it. Then we're seeing a ~10% increase in the purchase of new AMD systems. That's the point of the article.

This seems like a remarkable discovery; a writing system that combines sight with touch. I'd have thought there'd be more of a discussion, not lame jokes about Perl. I mean, imagine combing written English with Brail. You could double the information density on the page, just for starters. I don't know what else could be achieved with such a system, but I imagine you'd have even richer ways of writing than we do now.

Quantum computing is not magic. It has problems it's insanely good at (in theory) solving, and it has problems where it's as fast or slower (because of the necessary error correction) as your traditional deterministic computer. Not only are we a long way off from personal quantum computing (we still don't even have a general purpose quantum processor), we still need to research deterministic architectures.

Don't use it!

There's going to be no launch if their banking on that thing being built.

Just install Emacs.

Don't sue your fans!

Piranha Solution

To clarify my point: The article mentions Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Steven Hawking. What do they all have in common? They are not AI researchers. The author of the book is a philosophy professor. They are all talking about and making predictions in a field that they aren't experts in. Yes, they are all smart people, but I see them doing more harm than good by raising alarm when they themselves aren't an authority on the subject. An alarm that isn't shared with the experts in the field.

I find it interesting that the people raising the biggest alarm aren't AI researchers.