What hype and exaggeration. By any reasonable definition of AGI we are no where close.

People say that they couldnâ(TM)t make ends meet without the loan but the rates are so rapacious that you spend so much more!

If they just didnâ(TM)t take out the loans they would have more money and be able to cover more expenses.

>The problem is that no one distinguishes between AI and machine learning anymore

The founding definition of "AI" was behavioral. ML is a way of doing AI. Calling it a wholly separate category creates a distinction the original terminology doesn't support. ML may be thought of as a subfield of AI, rather than separate from it.

>These chips do image processing, which is not what any sensible person would call AI, but you gotta get those clicks somehow

No, it it *you* who have a totally narrow view of what AI is. The term AI goes back a long way, and many things that are done today using algorithms are thought by the normal public as not AI, but they actually are. From Google's spam folder AI, to planning the flights and trains, speech recognition, image recognition, even autocorrect and spell check. But as they become commonplace, people like you narrow what AI is. AI is not just LLMs.

What would it take, money wise, for Kalshi and Polymarket to move out of NYC, though? If they get any hassle from NY, that is exactly what they might do, and still provide gambling services to NY, because the Feds think this can't be regulated by the states.

Sorry but a majority of people voted for Trump last election.

So, for everyone else out there who gets banned, suck it up unless you can gin up a big online media campaign for your misfortune. Otherwise Microsloth will just continue to ban accounts "irreversibly".

True, but not as evil as running the programs and compute for the Nazis, or South Africa under aparthied.

In this case I don't see that it did anything wrong.

But IBM is still evil. SCO just sucks.

A while loop and aleep statement with execute() is all the latest rage.

Ok whatever. At this point, I *may* become a luddite.

Considering the company that they work for, this is merely karma.

They couldn't get a patent on it and make it cost hundreds of dollars unless it is.

Where growing mushrooms, anyone can do.

Montesano wrote the studies, and the most cited study by the EPA and other departments, that found that the chemical didn't cause any cancer.

Meanwhile, studies by labs not linked to Montesano found that the chemical was a probable cause of cancers.

This is what isn't being discussed in this Supreme Court case. Whether or not the label is accurate, and it is. Sad that they get caught up in the procedural, and on the company side rather than with science, and on the consumer side.

Glyphosate most likely is causing cancer in people.

No, it's what matters to people who bought all the stuff that was tariffed.

I don't care what the law is, and neither do all those people.

What matters is who actually, at the end, was out the money. And it was the consumers.

If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.

>Some were able to pass the tariff cost in their products. Most were not, especially the small companies and certainly not the small companies that went out of business.

You DO know that over 96% of the tariffs were paid for by consumers, and not the importers, don't you? "Some" my ass.