Hopefully that's also how you feel as well about the $100 billion in refunds of Trump's tariffs, which were ordered by the Supreme Court - not a problem, just resets the clock. But it certainly didn't seem to be how Trump felt about that.

"other laws" = Trump executive orders

Americans deserve an energy system built on common sense and not one dependent on "costly subsidies."

Costly subsidies... like $1.2 billion?

I almost added a comment to that previous post about my own tendency towards pedantry... so I totally get it.

Or perhaps a Futurama quote would've been better, e.g. "You are technically correct. The BEST kind of correct."

As I understand it, Astra is a specialist model for math, physics and AI research.

Lets see ...

Well,
you can not make up your own definitions what words mean.
Dictator: a guy who rules alone by dictating what the others have to do. Historically usually put into place for a limited time: by VOTE! Sometimes a small group.

Tyrant: a ruler who uses force and violence to suppress others, and usually rules alone.
Tyranny doesn't need to be a dictatorship, it can be an oligarchy.
No it can't. You are mixing that up with dictatorship.
The prime definition of a Tyranny is, that it is a single person. Which could a monarch, or an usurpator, anyone who however came into power.

Two completely different things.

And China is not a dictatorship. The leader of the party does not have any extraordinary power, nor is it a Tyranny as no one is suppressed. From the point of view of the people of China, they live in a democracy, that works better than any other on the planet.

You are reading the wrong magazines.

Also you are mixing up countries like Chile and Argentina, and names of rulers. Pinochet was in Chile, and his "contrahent" was Salvadore Allende. Voted into office by a democratic election, and not a communist or an enemy of the US and not connected to Russia, but deposed by the CIA, who put Pinochet into power. Who later murdered Allende.

Yes, but that is intention!
As BigDecimal is the correct datatype, you can not simply add an s, BigDecimals is not a datatype.
So I use - like everyone else in computer science - either an apostrophe 's or put (s) in parathesis.
So that it is visual clear, and easy to double click and copy/paste.

It is unlikely that I ever come to the USA :D

But thanks for the invite.

My center of live will be Thailand and Japan soon.

Are you mixing up Mithril with Lithium?

It is always only a matter of scale and momentum.

* Nuclear fuel is not reprocessed, as it does not solve the waste problem, and same time: making new fuel fram raw materials is simply cheaper than reusing the old fuel.

* Lithium batteries are not recycled (that changed recently), for the same reason: despite the absurd amount of waste, it is cheaper to make new ones from fresh lithium than extracting it from dead ones. That changes now - right now - as the the total amount of wasted batteries is so huge, the matter of scale kicks in.

* Wind turbine blades: same problem. Because actually: we do not have much wasted turbine blades yet. A wind turbine stands 10 to 30 years if nothing goes wrong. Then, what are we supposed to do with them to "recycle" them? It is not so that a whole wind farm gets over night "blade trash" ... recycling old blades will be a business in 10 or 20 years.

* even recycling gold from IT hard ware is only a niche market, same for aluminium, if it is not forcefully separated from ordinary trash, as we do in Germany.

Given how much of modern manufacturing is fully automated, why couldn't US companies compete on a level playing field with Chinese ones?
Because they have to buy the robots from China or Germany.

Or restart the whole supply chain from mining raw materials to producing advanced parts (like electric engines with exotic magnets) to CPUs, parts for robots, and so on ...

The problem is that Trump and his cronies think that USA is the "only market".

Supposed the market is not saturated, like for example the RAM and CPU market, as in: there is lots of demand, but not enough production capacity.

Then the one who puts tariffs on an import loses. As the producer simply sells elsewhere.

Then comes the silly part: I have a factory in China. It does not bother me at all, if my product costs more in your country. It only bothers me, what my contractor in your country pays me. Which will be the same like before. And if he orders less because my contractor is losing customers: I simply sell to a different place.

Most likely I have not even extra paper work, as the importer of my goods has that burden.

Tariffs per se might have a point, if they actually shape a market or are on "dangerous" goods, like alcohol or tobacco.

For example in a few years Germany will probably have high taxes for the owner of a gasoline car, and high tariffs for the imports of such a car. Because "the political will" is to get rid of them completely.

The general principle of tariffs is: you tax/tariff something "bad" and use the money to subsidize something "good". Pushing the market into the direction you want to go.

It seems pretty obvious that when most people use a phrase like "insider trading" in this context, what they are really referring to trades motivated by access to insider information - not the straightforward trading by company insiders that you mention.

TFA: "If you want to ban profiting from the failure of clinical trials, you would start with the stock market, where the financial incentive for this type of profit is orders of magnitude larger," said Kalshi spokesman Jack Such, pointing to stock market short sellers who have profited from clinical trial failures. "While Kalshi and the stock market are the same in this regard, they do differ in one important way: the stock market doesn't give any valuable information to researchers," Such said.

This is either ignorant and/or maliciously deceptive for the simple fact that there are rules against insider trading. Investors in pharmaceutical companies are not (or at least, should not be) privy to modifying the conduct of a trial in order to secure or deny approval. There is no similar oversight for these betting markets. Sure, they might say that your wager could be disqualified if it comes out that you interfered in the outcome, but that is little comfort for the trial participants and the drug sponsors, who can't just hop into a time machine and run it back.

And that's why there are so many regulations surrounding the conduct of clinical trials. People might argue that there is corruption and untoward influence already--that FDA approvals (especially under the current administration) are not necessarily based purely on scientific and medical legitimacy. But that's a very strange argument to put forth in defense of enabling MORE interference.

While I'm at it, let's also just shut down the absurd idea that betting markets somehow facilitate better information sharing about novel treatments. The point of these trials is to gather the evidence in an unbiased, objective, scientific way. Betting on them is not going to gather you any more meaningful evidence than what the trial designers have specified in the study protocol. The idea that "the market is efficient" is not in any meaningful sense a scientific approach to deciding whether an investigational product actually works. If that were the case, the FDA would be basing approvals off stock prices.

Honestly, who do these assholes think they're fooling? The only reason why they want to do this is because the house takes their cut, win or lose.

We can debate ad nauseam about the appropriateness of Asimov's laws, their historical context, how he as a SF writer applied them in his work, whether or not he was "right," etc. But the essential problem remains: the current framework that we are using to develop these technologies are inadequate for the purpose of ensuring safety.

Now, some people would argue otherwise--that, to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Every technology has the potential for misuse. Nothing can ever be 100% safe. And I don't dispute this, but that is also not the point, because, again, the central question of safety has to do with designing systems that will not destroy us. We're not talking about individual adverse impacts--which, mind you, we should strive to avoid as well--but the kind of technology that has the potential for global impact. Not enough effort has been made to safeguard against this contingency.

And we also have people who would say that such worries are needlessly alarmist, and assert that current systems are nowhere near that level of capability. That may be true. But that kind of thinking is much like climate change denialism in that it is rooted in a failure to anticipate and plan. Scientists warned us about climate change over 50 years ago and nothing was done; the evidence continues to mount and there still are people who have a financial and political motive to deny it. And for similar motives, there are people who insist on moving forward incautiously, with no regard for safety or ethics or consequences, because it gives them power and money.

I'm less interested in the specifics about whether Asimov's laws are appropriate or sufficient or correctly ordered, than I am about what we actually need to do as a race to prevent disasters. Let the historical record show that have been profoundly cavalier--we literally discovered planet-destroying science (nuclear fission) and then treated it like a toy. I don't think it is unreasonable to express doubts about our ability to have learned our lesson.