This means that plaintiffs will recover somewhere between 26% and 53% of overcharge damages, according to one of the court documents (PDF) -- far beyond the typical amount, which lands between 5% and 15%.
Anything short of 100% is merely a cost of doing business. This is no victory, this is yet another loss in the long history of losses against corporations.
Really, why are we so lazy?
Optimization is most often a pathway to higher levels of reward. As a result, there is an evolutionary drive that has reinforced the concept of taking the path of least resistance.
Yeah, it makes things more inconvenient, but that the way it goes: it's always security versus convenience
Humans are fundamentally at odds with their own nature but this is amplified when you consider which humans are selected for executive positions. As a result of these evolutionary pressures an external force is required to enforce the correct prioritization.
I'm not sure what idiots thought it was a good idea but it seems pretty damn irresponsible to connect vital resources to the internet. Frankly, it's past time we had a law where if the NSA can remotely knock your vital infrastructure (for civilization) offline that your company gets to pay a substantial penalty. If it happens a second time within a few years then the company executives get prosecuted for criminal negligence.
There has been regime change. The old supreme leader was killed. The new one was thought to be too extreme by the old one, but that was before his mother, father, wife, child and a bunch of other family members were killed by the US and Israel. Much the same experience as a bunch of other young Iranians who might have been leaning towards the whole US = the great satan thing being a bit of hypoerbole.
AI is typically more efficient than the old hand-coded algorithms.
The reason you want to do this in space is that you want it to be autonomous. What might you want an autonomous satellite to do?
The data rate is likely to be the limiting factor
No, it's going to be the amount of processing power you've got. In the future you could put more up there but that has problems. You could also put more lasers on the satellite and have more bandwidth.
What you can't do is make light go faster. On-satellite analysis could be critical if you wanted to run a fairly simple algorithm on a fairly limited amount of data and detect a fairly obvious feature very quickly, and do something automated with that information right away in orbit, or at least on that side of the planet. Like detecting blooms on thermal imaging. For example.
There is no "oh, natural disasters and stuff" application where it's not more efficient to return the images to the surface. There also aren't any such applications where you wouldn't want to have the images available to view.
The problem with Reagan's Star Wars: no droids.
Uh huh.
Computers were more expensive in the past. Particularly 40 years ago.
Yeah, I didn't include the Air because it's kind of dual use. There are enough examples of machines specifically targeted at home users it wasn't necessary to give the trolls more room for pedantry.
I was actually there when Jobs announced the Macbook Air. Apple was very much talking up how great it was for business users and people who travel a lot, and BTW probably a good choice for students too. Not like e.g. the clamshell iMac. It only recently got a real colour choice too, and only barely.
What makes you think China wants to project power?
Maybe not the best examples. Genghis Khan did not conquer Persia. He got partway through then got distracted by China, where he died. The Mongol conquest took generations, spread the empire thin, and it broke up to civil war and internal resistance twenty or so years later.
Alexander did conquer Persia, then died about five years later. His empire broke up in civil war immediately.
iMac, iBook, white Macbook, eMac. The Classic and LC were aimed at the lower end too.
The last 15 years when Apple hasn't had a real mass consumer machine except for the mac mini have been kind of an exception. I guess that's also how long your memory works for.
It would be interesting to compare the AI summary accuracy to
1) Hitting "I feel lucky"
2) A selection of average humans given no-AI Google search
3) A selection of average humans given AI+Google search
4) A selection of average humans
You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page
