Your statement would apply if these data center space nutters could certify that everything they launch will reach escape velocity.

For everything else, what goes up, must come down. Right back into our jurisdiction.

I'm having a bit of trouble working up any sympathy, as the saying goes.

We can't afford to let the success of big tech companies depend on the health of fragile meatbags. We need to get resilient, fault-tolerant AGI in there running the enterprise. Also, unlike meatbags, you don't need $100M stock payouts to convince an AGI to work as a corporate executive.

The FSB is certainly getting a good ROI on their investment in Trump.

They've already dealt with this. If you read the fine print on these agreements, many or most of the recent ones say that the company has the option of rolling up any "substantially similar" arbitration cases into a single mass arbitration. (Which as usual, is decided by a person whose paycheck ultimately depends on the business of that same company.)

You can put solar panels on roofs. I wonder if someone ever had thought about it.

Sorry. When you signed up for that discount card a few years ago, you agreed to individual binding arbitration only.

AI is so smart that it can hallucinate without even having to take drugs.

Everyone has the right to be a political activist. That includes scientists. You want to cut the ability of scientists to speak their opinion. And that's a bad thing per se.

In jurisdiction, there is the principle: Ignorantia legis non excusat. We should apply the same principle to science. Ignorantia scientes non excusat. Being wrong about science is not an opinion. It's something you could rectify by educating yourself about science, in the same way you educate yourself about the legal situation before deciding something important. No judge will excuse you for having a "different legal opinion" about something that is clearly stated otherwise in the law. We should do the same for science. And if you don't like the way scientists are of a different opinion than you about the possible outcome of a political decision, it's not because they are activists, it's because they know something you want to ignore.

There is no such thing as "plain Lithium-Ion". Lithium-Ion is a catch-all term for accumulator cells which use Lithium ions in anode, cathode and electrolyte. There are many versions of them. The oldest type is Lithium-Cobaltoxide (LiCoO2), which uses Cobalt(II)-oxide in the cathode. Then there is Lithium-Nickel-Maganese-Cobalt (LiNMC), which is often used in cars, because it allows for very dense accumulator cells. Lithium-Ironphosphate (LiFePO4), while having the same gravimetric density as LiNMC, takes up more space for the same capacity, it is a more fluffy material. We have Lithium-Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminium-Oxide (LiNCA), used in the cells Panasonic builds for Tesla. Many pedelec batteries, but also the Nissan Leaf use Lithium-Manganeseoxide (LiMO) cells.

Undoubtedly the origin of the Hobbit-steals-dragons-treasure meme.

I think you mean, "so the middle men can pocket the savings".

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Lets put it like this: You have to compare 80 years of biography to find out. Right now, people dying did not experience the Great Depression and the Second World War, which gives them a large boost compared to people living 10 years early. We might see the effect of Microplastic in 50 years time.

Let's figure it out together:

test.c: In function 'main':
test.c:5:14: error: expected expression before ';' token
    5 | int x = 1+;

Apparently, Oneplus is a syntax error.