I saw this in the documentary 'Idiocracy'

Similar concerns here, both for F-droid apps and DJI's - which require installing from an APK downloaded directly from DJI to get the latest version. I only have a handful of apps I sideload, and when I'm not updating those I tend to have the ability to sideload turned off for the modicum of additional security afforded against inadvertant user error. If I either need to go through this 24-hour process every time I update the apps, or leave sideloading permanantly enabled (which I'd be more likely to do, I think), then this is yet another user-unfriendly move by Google that is almost certainly more about being self-serving than anything else.

If I wanted a walled garden, I'd have bought an iPhone.

All kinds of personal information can be sent, they probably don't want to be liable.

I would hike every day

I live in New Mexico with a lot of native tribes and I can't recall the last time I have heard the term 'Indian' used by anyone.

Or imagine you could use a laser to write data on a spinning disk. That would be amazing!

I picked veal in this case because I would bet this is closer to what you get with lab grown. It takes years of living and exercise to make muscle like from a adult cow. I seriously doubt they can replicate this in a lump that sits in a vat.

It would need to be as close to like-for-like as possible or people are going to reject the results, so presumably if they've grown rump steak, say, then they'd need to not just compare it with some actual rump steak, but prepare and cook the two cuts at the same time in the same way. The ideal result here for them here is either "lab grown is better" or "can't tell them apart", after which buying decisions should come down to bang-per-buck, and that might even hold if lab-grown isn't quite as tasty, but is sufficiently cheaper to keep it in consideration.

Sure, they could - and probably will - try and stack the deck in their favour. It is marketing after all. But that can only go so far; if they try and compare a premium lab-grown cut with born-and-bred offal, they're going to get called on that and for many people that will mean that they won't get a second chance, ever. Pepsi was a mostly a pure taste test of two otherwise identical fizzy liquids, but food is really about all of the senses so if they really want to sell this and overcome the ick factor, they'll have precut bite-size pieces of meat ready that look the same, cook them on that stand, and let you compare the appearance, smell, texture, and hear the sizzle while cooking as well as taste the samples.

It would fail. Think of the difference between veal and a steak. Same animal just different handling. What version of beef would this be replicating?

Supposedly, pork. "Long pig" is the literal translation of the word that was used in many South Pacific cannibal cultures and was used by European explorers to refer to the practice.

It needs a version of the "Pepsi challange" blind taste test from yesteryear. I'd certainly take that if given the opportunity, but have yet to find anywhere with the stuff to try in the first place, let alone to do so in a blind test. If it's equally as good as they claim (and the science says it *is* the same, right down to the cellular level), then they shouldn't have any problem convincing people that it's a viable option to regular farmed meat, and if they can do that, then the cheapest option should win in many cases.

I suspect there may be some legitimate corner cases about "free range", "corn fed", and similar dietry or lifestyle things that will have at least some effect on the texture of the meat (e.g. buff animals vs. couch potato animals), but maybe there are ways to replicate at least some of that in the lab too?

I think the number one thing driving this is social media, which people have the option to turn off. Our minds aren't wired to handle dozens of crisis every day even though they don't effect us directly.

I have 30 years experience and in the last year I've written only a few lines of code. It's real for me too. I was able to convert all our unit tests to a new library in a few days it would have take me a month or more manually.

Not yet, anyway, but they do presumably get to see emotional responses like this from humans in their training data. If there are enough human tantrums over code submission rejections in that data, then it's not a huge stretch to where that would be an acceptable sort of content template for an AI to build on to generate a response. A lot of the rest is probably exactly what evanh suggests in their post immediately below; humans using an AI to play games to get a kick out of being mean or, in the case of the ArsTechnica article, a lazy "journalist" not fact checking the quotes from the AI they sent off to do their research and write an article for them.

According to google: "In 2024, the number of abortions in the U.S. was around 1.14 million"