Like I said, you just *assumed* the wrong sense of "identify". You still do.

The headline is not incorrect. It just doesn't contain the entire summary. You therefore made the assumption that the verb "identify" applied to the wrong thing.

Just like your original comment didn't say that you were talking only about the headline. That was supposed to be inferred by the reader by your context. Maybe you should have set forth your entire argument in your subject line.

We all know that you're not supposed to read the linked article before pontificating on a topic here. But going exclusively with the headline and not even skimming TFS is hardcore.

Dark matter, whatever it is, is known to be true. So far, nobody has found any interactions with electromagnetism.

My point was, a lot of people point at that situation and say: "We can't see it! So it must not exist, and you are stupid and ignorant for hypothesizing that it could exist!"

You mean that you just don't believe in any measurement that is not made directly using the electromagnetic field.

If there are measurements made via the gravitational field, you don't believe it unless somebody figures out how to replicate the measurement directly using electromagnetism. If there is a physical phenomenon in this universe that simply never interacts with the electromagnetic field, well then it just will never exist for you.

From their site:
"drive up to 40 miles per day completely off the grid".

Even half that would cover all my driving needs for our 2nd car (2 person/2 car family).

The legal theory of whoever has the highest powered lawyers.

You are hopelessly naive. You think that the world actually works according to the preconceived principles in your nutjob head. Well, it doesn't.

They might be responsible for the user using their tool to cause a meltdown under some legal theories, so they explicitly put that in the contract to make sure.

Likewise, I'm sure Anthropic doesn't want to get hauled in front of a Nuremberg-style tribunal one day for facilitating crimes against humanity. So they avoid going into that zone. This has never been a secret, so I'm not sure why the Pentagon is having a panic attack about it all of a sudden.

If Anthropic violated the terms of any contract that has already been agreed to, the gov't would have said that.

The government is obviously trying to void the terms of a contract they've already agreed to, however. Otherwise, they wouldn't have their panties in a wad about Anthropic not "letting them do stuff".

Consumer or not, there is a contract. The biggest difference is that the consumer doesn't get to negotiate and has to scroll it in a tiny text box. The EULA for the software in a system I just bought said that I can't use it to control nuclear power plants. That was the vendor's subjective preference.

Are you too stupid to have ever read an EULA?

That is exactly how *all* software is sold.

Maybe that's the reason he's making the White House taller and hardscaping the ground next to it.

My device still uses a pneumatic jack like the old-school airliners. I hope they still have those stethoscope thingies on board, otherwise everyone is going to be listening to my scratchy loop of lounge music.

I've got the cheap version that uses the anti-lock brake optical sensors to try to guess if the tire is flat. No RF sensors required.

I get a false positive and have to recalibrate a couple of times per year, but that's a small price to pay to make sure nobody is tracking me!

(Now I just have to figure out how to work around having those big high-contrast unique ID numbers screwed onto my front and rear bumpers.)

Am I the only one that find "times as cheap" annoying? I really want it to be 1/3 the cost. Meh.

I'm also curious how many cycles it's good for when compared to other battery tech.

In a self-referential plot twist, the ultimate result of this experiment was the Spiderdemon.