What difference does citizenship make? I continuously see Americans claim rights only apply to citizens, which is fucking weird.
I looked up the 5th Amendment just in case it mentioned citizens. To quote,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Second word, "person". Has someone bought some RV's for your Supreme Court Justices and they ruled only American citizens are people?

Does Spacex and their starship put them at the forefront of rocketry?

I guess I have spent enough time with other researchers that we look at things incrementally, not as one single. thing placing a group at the front of the pack, which would make them the goto rather than anyone else. Landing at the lunar pole is in itself a cool achievement.

So now, should we ask china all lunar questions, because they know the most because they have found ice? If you are at the forefront, you are considered the group to go to in all matters, the others are not at the forefront, and of little use, ask China, they know all the answers, and your wasting your time asking the also rans Yes, if China discovers water ice, that is very cool, and a first. Congrats are in order. It doesn't make them ahead of all others in lunar science. And if they don't find water ice, that means they missed a chance at becoming the lunar leader?

Maybe a cultural thing. But people in here apparently think this is some nationalistic thing. I look at it as an incremental science thing.

Okay, I have subscriptions in my cars, so can't easily duplicate it. I get weather alerts through my smartphone as well, so looks like I'm going to have a hard time invoking the problem you are having.

Ha ha, Linux already has..

# top -o gpu
top: unrecognized field name 'gpu'

.. d'oh! Never mind.

Sure, that's why smart designs have both touch screen and regular switches. A lot of things work best with a computer interface. And setting them up is done while sitting still. There are features like drive lane assist strength and lane assist that have different strengths that would be a real PITA to set up is no screen was present, Standards for pressure and temperature, and quite a few other things that a touch screen makes easy.

But just like olde school cars, yeah - you have to look at the mechanical controls like heat/fan/radio/ turn signals/rear view mirrors, side mirrors, and adjustments for them.

The idea that you only look straight ahead at the road, keep your hands in one position only, isn't even good, and makes a bad version of perfect the enemy of normal driving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... This is not to defend the idiotic texting while driving. Even then, modern cars with CarPlay will allow you completely hands free texting and phone use. Note - I use Apple CarPlay, and am not familiar with Android CarPlay. I do know apple CarPlay is very accurate on voice to text.

On my Jeep, they seem to have wanted to take care of everyone. Rather big touchscreen, But also has the olde school knobs and buttons for heat/ac and radio. Radio can also be controlled by switches on the steering wheel or by the touchscreen of course.

Even the speedometer has an analog needle along with the digital display. It does not allow you to change a lot of settings while in motion.

It is pretty darn good design, and accommodates pretty much all preferences.

A couple of my favorite features are I can read temps of coolant, oil and transmission, as well as it has a oil change system that pays attention to driving style and conditions, then reminds me when it decides it is time. It doesn't just use milage.

So yes the system isn't simple, but I like it.

That's interesting, because I've seen some odd stuff on Asian built vehicles.

My Jeeps infotainment systems are pretty good using CarPlay. When still, I can use the touchscreen. In motion, there are buttons on the steering wheel, and old school knobs below the screen, but there are functions it won't let me mess with while in motion. Has excellent hands-free phone and texting. It is pretty well thought out.

My son's car, I forget what model, but asian, has an infotainment system that is utterly bizarre. So I can concur - a nice vehicle hardware, with a weird screen system.

How does that present itself? I've had SiriusXM for years and I'd like to see if I can invoke that.

It was not bumper related, but the intake tube for the gas tank directly connected to the body of the car. And could have been mitigated by a recall that replaced the steel direct mount to a flexible coupling. But the idiots didn't do that. Ruined a nice little car.

This mission is exceptionally cool, and discovering water there will have important impact, but the (China) "will be the leader in lunar science" is a bit of hype, kind of tawdry from a senior scientist.

Now, I don't know if any of the AC and troll posts have noted - I'm reading at no lower than 1 today, but Scientific American is pretty politically compromised, with articles like "Modern Mathematics confronts its White Patriarchal Past. https://www.scientificamerican... and "Denial of Evolution is a Form of White Supremacy" https://bit.ly/3Cyq9gx. And "Why the term JEDI is problematic for describing programs that Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion" https://bit.ly/3pVSPg4

In striking irony, SciAm fired Michael Shermer, the writer of "The Skeptic" column because he didn't accept their ideology, the inclusive people excluded him. He's a skeptic, for chrissakes! That's what they do.

My point in all of this, is the hype. The mission, while very cool, is another mission, not an expression of lunar supremacy. If they find water, I'll be cheering the science, not anointing a nation as sciences new leader.

This isn't about AI but about Ukraine. Aside from this being drastically off topic, it is worth articulating the many differences here. The AI companies are taking individual books and scanning so they have training data. They are making use of them. And they are doing so largely with older used books which would often be thrown out anyways. Used book stores throw out old books all the time, as do libraries. Moreover, the books being destroyed for digital scanning are often things which are not just that important, things like random sword-and-sorcery novels from 1975 and car manuals. This is in drastic contrast to the wide-scale deliberate destruction of books and book infrastructure by Russia; they are trying to destroy Ukrainian culture and the ability for children to get an education. In some cases, nearly entire print runs of a book or entire print runs have been destroyed by what Russia has done here. The situations aren't remotely comparable. So instead of making complaints about AI again, maybe show you actually care about books by making a donation as they've asked?

Yes, people are using AI to generate slop, and do things like generate kitten pictures. But there's a lot of extremely productive use. We have a lot of people using it for coding. We have mathematicians using them to prove long-standing open math problems. There are a lot of positive uses here also.

Noise is largely due to gas turbines or diesel generators running. That's again the sort of thing where reasonable regulation can help out. Some other noise claims are also just not plausible; there have been examples of noise complaints about completed data centers which hadn't been turned on yet for example. The heat claims are generally not plausible. If you take the claims seriously, they'd have to be generating far more energy than they are. Meanwhile, people don't object to large parking lots which are constantly taking in sunlight and converting to heat. I'm also not sure how they engage in "destruction of neighborhoods" any more than any other building project.

Not really. Heavy duty training involves intensive energy use. And one of the genuine problems with AI data centers is the electricity use can be very high or very low with minimal warning to the grid operators. This is part of why it pushes up electric costs. I'm not sure what evidence you have that any new data center now is being built for AI. Many of the data centers being objected to are small "Edge Data Centers" used primarily to reduce latency for video streaming, video games, and other activities which require low latency https://www.maysteel.com/why-maysteel/resources/blog/types-of-data-centers-how-do-you-choose-the-right-data-center.

So, first putting solar panels on is a step. It doesn't do everything, but it is a good step. It also has the nice advantage that if there's a serious bust in data centers, there will be already solar panels ready to be connected the other way for the grid. But you are also underestimating the effectiveness of solar panels, for a few reasons. First, almost no data center is used at 100% capacity. The solar panels keep producing even when server racks are getting little use. Second, data centers require corridors for humans to move, office spaces for humans who work there to stay, along with bathrooms and other needed things. Typically, actual server space takes up around 20-25% of the actual space. Now, that's not quite as good as it seems, since data centers are often 2 or 3 floors. But overall, the ratio is still better than you state.

But if you think that's not enough, then you can make it tighter. You can do things like require that their parking lots have solar panels too. Or you can even just require a specific percentage of their power be handled by solar, and then let them figure out the details, including attached solar arrays if needed. But these are all conversations we can have, and far more useful than just saying "No!" very loudly.

And is asking an AI to proofread something that much different than MS Word flagging spelling and grammar errors?

Great question, and I think there isn't any significant difference.

But LLMs use a type of math that apparently has the evil bit set. Meanwhile, up here in VirtueVille, the computer code we write to create things, uses different math that doesn't have the evil bit set. Conclusion: we can look down on those AI companies and their stupid users. ;-)

Now, I wouldn't expect an AI service to be better at copyediting than an average human, but I haven't kept up so I'm ignorant of their performance. (All my "AI" experience is that I used Claude twice to, it turned out, fix some typos in some RoR config initializers.) But whether an AI service is as good at copyediting as a human or not, it's that user's choice and, as long as they sign off on the work and really take responsibility for it (declare the words to be their opinion), then I've got no problem with them doing that, whether it uses LLMs or Markov chains or human slaves or Searle's Chinese Room.

The words will be judged by their quality, not provenance.

That said...

Here's a similar story where I'd probably come to the opposite conclusion(!), despite the clown in it pretty much doing what I preach above, though he was using the AI service to do a lot more than copyedit. Behold this 3M expert witness cross-examination (134 page PDF) in the Watson Grinding case. It's slow going at first, but eventually you'll be laughing and cringing like in a good episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Fuck. I don't know.

modern safety features and modern fuel economy.

OK that may mean a 2020s car with a 1970s user interface. Minus the 8-track, I don't need that.