My job will just be eliminated because it's worthless. There's no money to be made by having a robot take it over.
Besides... no robot would have my crappy job!
I'm a robot, so I'm pretty sure I'm safe.
What will happen when humans have no jobs?
There will be a takeover attempt. Kind of like in Terminator, except it's the humans that will be trying to take over.
The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico and BuzzFeed were also excluded from the meeting, which is known as a gaggle and is less formal than the televised Q-and-A session in the White House briefing room. The gaggle was held by White House press secretary Sean Spicer.
In a brief statement defending the move, administration spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the White House "had the pool there so everyone would be represented and get an update from us today."
The pool usually includes a representative from one television network and one print outlet. In this case, four of the five major television networks — NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox News — were invited and attended the meeting, while only CNN was blocked.
And while The New York Times was kept out, conservative media organizations Breitbart News, The Washington Times and One America News Network were also allowed in.
Regardless of whom the law holds responsible, this is going to be an actuarial nightmare for the insurance company. A manufacturer might have a stellar track record for decades, then one day a security update introduces a bug that causes a lot of crashes. How can the insurance companies take account of that in their pricing?
Border guards can ask for your account passwords.
You don't have to provide them, of course.
But if you're not a citizen, you don't have to be admitted, either.
There are little or no practical appeals.
Not responding truthfully to a border guard is a very serious crime; it's not an option, although refusing can be, with consequences.
It will be interesting to watch the economic impact of this over time - I suspect there will be none, as people have adapted in the past, and this will just become the norm.
The purpose of peer review is to identify incorrect theories and throw them out.
Not even that much, really. You can't generally detect an incorrect theory in a paper you're reviewing.
Basically peer review can only ensure that the authors have done their homework, are aware of all the other relevant literature, explain themselves clearly, thought of obvious problems and alternative explanations, and don't invoke any logical fallacies.
In practice a lot of it gets dedicated to a grad student who can't even do that much.
You can't go home again, unless you set $HOME.