IIUC (I'm no specialist in the field!!):

No, but one of the possible meanings of "dark matter" is "black holes created during the big bang". It's tricky to make it work, and it requires some adjustment in how stable black holes are, but it's possible. The problem is that it would require that they evaporate more quickly and quietly than theory says that they should.

Note that these would be relatively small black holes. Possibly the larger ones became the nuclei around which the first generation of stars collected.

As your dumb ass was typing that, The big orange Nazi (R) is having his DOJ sue in federal court to have this Minnesota state law overturned.

Beyond that, this isn't even a partisan issue. This is about "tribes." Reservation casinos. You see, moron, Minnesota tribes don't want competition for wager money in the People's Republic of Minnesota. They oppose any attempt to introduce additional gambling beyond what was already established before their rise in influence: sports betting, prediction markets, whatever. Being a cultural pressure group, their casino money pays for lots of (D)s in the state legislature. And those (D)s do their job, outlawing what they're told and mouthing stuff about "safety" or whatever, providing a plausible narrative.

So congratulations. You're officially a Useful Idiot.

Someone failed to equip you with adequate cynicism. Upbringing issues.

Too bad they couldn't both lose. OTOH, Musk is as big a liar as Altman, so neither of their testimonies should be believed. Which make it hard to come to a just decision.

"drone"? What year are you talking about?

They weren't peaceful, but they were introverted. Now, as a matter of survival, they're doing their best to try to drag down everyone else.

So, yes, Damn Trump for provoking this.

That design assumed a dispersed network. The networks have gotten increasingly concentrated. If there's only one connection, you can't route around it.

OTOH, SpaceX might reap large increases in business, because they would be the only route that wasn't broken. (I don't think Iran has orbital capability.)

You're assuming that everyone is one extreme or the other. And not only is this wrong, there aren't only two sides, no matter what the news says.

OTOH, Flock *seems* to be an example of the "benefits of the surveillance state". I.e., we only hear about the generally approved of uses. If you were to believe that those were the only uses, I'd think you a simpleton. And it's impossible for me to make a decision that they're a good thing without knowing what those other uses are.

It's normal that the most expensive version of something changes price less, often not at all, when other models are experiencing high inflation. The most expensive model is already the highest price the buyer can bear.
Cheapest 9070XT is now priced less than a mid-priced 9060XT.

Same with anything else; cheap milk doubled in price, but grass fed organic milk didn't change at all.
Cheap eggs quadrupled in price, pasture raised local eggs didn't change.

I paid $439.99 for my 9060XT in January, exact same model is $649.95 right now, a difference of $210,62.

Definitely a thing.

On the contrary, when you introduce your experience as relevant to a conversation then people's assessment of your experience is something they evaluate. That's why you share your experience; because you want others to take it into consideration. You'd have to be very simple-minded to think they'll just agree with you blindly without weighing your words.

Cast iron isn't unbreakable, and if you think it is that's very consistent with a person who packed it poorly, resulting in damage. Everything you say is just reinforcing that the system was working, you were a poor seller and rage-quit when people demanded you do better.

Yes. And... "duh?" Are you an idiot? (Don't answer that)

On most purchases it says, "Buyer pays return shipping." There is no financial gain by smashing something and then paying shipping to return it. They end up out their shipping, they lost money. So yes, you demand they return it and use their refusal to return it to win any dispute. And you put a comment on their feedback that they refused to return it. (And don't add additional insults that make you look bad, just give the relevant facts concisely)

It's not rocket science. There are lots of sellers who have huge numbers of sales, and they don't have the levels of bad buyers that the neckbeards on slashdot claim. Less than 1 in 1000. People who claim most of their buyers are trying to scam them are toxic sellers. In the case of the slashdot neckbeards it's probably unintentional; they're probably just too anti-social to comprehend what the normal "common sense" market expectations are for a seller. I mean, just click on their comment history.

It's an electric rocket system. They've aggressively eliminated all possible hydraulics. Gimbling rocket engines and flap articulation is all electric in Starship V3 and booster stage. So is cryogenic recirc. All that stuff has to react rapidly to achieve the agility necessary for the insane flight profile they have; slow gear trains won't cut it; so they have dozens of the most powerful direct drive actuators our species has yet devised.

Also, 9 MW isn't all that much. It's about 12,000 HP, or what you get from a modest gas turbine, or a few diesel locomotives. Naval vessels use gas turbines of that size for on-board power generation.

Well, FWIW, I've never found a site *through* substack. They were always referrals from something else I was reading, which might have been *on* substack.

But that answer is false.

Your post was quite reasonable, and probably true, until you wrote "AIs aren't capable of reasoning". There *are* definitions of reasoning for which that it true, but they aren't the ones in common use. Cicero would use that kind of definition in his "school of rhetoric", where he taught people how to win arguments". Socrates would not. He was trying to find truth.

Clearly AIs have limited reason. They can (at least in principle) do perfect logic, but the difference between that an reason is not well defined. (And logic can prove that you can't prove algebra to be self-consistent.) To me reason is evaluating a set of data and a goal, and using logic to plot a nearly-optimal path to achieve the goal. I think where AIs are generally most deficient is in their goals, though obviously they also have an imperfect understanding of the current state. (Well, so do people.)

That said, there are many areas where current AIs seem deficient when compared with people. This doesn't mean or imply that they don't have a modest amount of the features that they are deficient in, but merely that we expect them to have more. Think of capabilities as being gradients rather than boolean variables. This is commonly called "jagged capabilities". They're better at some things than most people are, and worse at other things than most people are.