If you think they just track license plates you haven't been paying attention.

No, you don't understand. Fairness for *people* is "woke". Fairness for those poor corporations who are not getting a chance at federal money is noble.

There are definitely use cases for which it isn't needed. But that doesn't cover everything. There will ALWAYS be use cases that would require (or at least benefit from) higher connection bandwidth...and speed can often substitute nicely.

Well, the only better advice is "Don't put your master copy on the internet" and "Always have backups that you've checked".

That's clearly wrong, as there currently exist (very niche) applications for entanglement. I have strong doubts as to it's wide application, as the conditions for keeping it extant are so severe, but few and niche applications isn't the same as unimportant.

FWIW, ISTM that this might have application to quantum key exchange, I just don't know enough to say yes or no.

I believe it's not just a stunt, even if it doesn't imply what a lot of people seem to believe. (OTOH, I don't really know enough to *assert* that it's not just a stunt. I just see no reason to believe that, and decent reasons to doubt it.)

We now have a NUMBER for the value of these data breaches. Time for the Lawyers to use this metric to go after every single data breach.

I'm sure that technically they said something like "The man may be a shoplifter", and thus were correct in that sense. But using a system that does that at that error rate is NOT reasonable. This is like the automated driving systems that require a human driver to take over within 2 seconds. NOT a good idea.

Your math, is, alas, wrong. 99% is one in one hundred. 99.9% is one in one thousand. 99.99% is one in ten thousand. 99.98% is two in ten thousand or one in five thousand, as the OP stated.

So, the Day After Tomorrowland?

Well, yes. But they didn't actually know that that was what the design implied.

Tests have shown a lot of AI actions that weren't expected ahead of time, but in retrospect should have been obvious.

This requires that you believe they're being honest, with no backing evidence. I can see possible evidence of consistency, but that's a much weaker claim.

If they were lies, then I agree with down-ranking them.
If they were just opinions, then I only agree with avoiding them.

OTOH, I don't use X/Twitter. Slashdot is as close as I come to social media.

I think I heard this story last year, or perhaps a few years ago. I've no reason to think it was the same plant, though.

We're also discovering unceasingly dim objects that are closer. They just don't get the same news coverage. But I'm more interested in wandering planets and planetoids (and even Oort belt objects).