IIUC, ethanol *is* one of the standard choices. But which choice is best depends on lots of details. (OTOH, I don't know if bleach is *ever* best...but it ought to at least sort-of work.)

They aren't the only one, but ISTM that they're currently the most aggressive intruders.

Welll....it *does* imply that the AI is good enough to generate an alternate ending. This may be the start of a new genre of "choose your own adventure" media.

Sorry, but even not the AIs often come up with answers no human has ever thought of. It's not that you're wrong about the errors, you aren't. But they have working original insights, and design working machines that no human understands (admittedly this may be because not too many people have studied them).

Yes, AIs are currently vastly inferior to people, but they also don't think the same way. (Or even the same as each other.) AFAIK, nobody has a good explanation for this effect yet, I sure don't. But I predicted it would show up when I saw https://news.mit.edu/2019/why-... several years ago.

When an AI appears to reason the same way you do, it's probably because it's running a successful simulation of how you would evaluate the situation. It's quite clear from various other research (psychology, biology, etc.) that humans don't see the world as it *is*, but rather as it's probably going to be useful for them to see it. To pick one obvious example, you've got a blind spot in the middle of your visual field for each eye that is about as large as the image of the full moon. And you never notice it.

That does, indeed, seem to be a big question. OTOH, the "tip of the Red Giant" measure seems to agree with the "type 1a supernova" measure. (But I'm not sure how big the error bars are.)

N.B.: I'm no expert in this field. But I think the actual experts admit to a lot more uncertainty than ever shows up in popular articles.

I haven't understood the details of the assembler code for decades. Even if *you* do, you won't understand the microcode that implements the assembler.

This wasn't "ingesting or shooting up with bleach", this was injecting directly into the tumor. I just suspect that there are much better choices of which poison to inject. And it clearly won't work after the thing has started to metastasize, at least not sufficiently.

Paracelsus "The dose makes the poison." is the right reference here. This isn't an unreasonable approach. But I've no reason to believe that the proposed poison is better than the ones that doctors typically use.

Whether injection into the tumor is the preferable approach depends in the particulars of the case. I believe that often it is.

Actually it's not certain that would always make things worse, and it should work...if the tumor hasn't metastasized.

The question is, "Is it any better than the other poisons that get injected into tumors to kill them?". One might suspect that it had worse side effects, but this might be wrong. (I believe every treatment of that kind has pretty bad side effects.)

Mod parent -1 incoherent. MS and IBM are not good friends (or they weren't a couple of decades ago when I last checked).

Are you asserting that's what they did? Because they certainly had the opportunity. Or are you just being bigoted?

Depends on how you count the cost. To me it seems the cheapest option is to switch vendors. (OTOH, it's been decades since I used VMWare.)

I think it depends on context. IIUC...
If the hacking damaged someone who is a customer of Clorox, then it's Clorox's resonsibility. But it they've got a strong contract with someone else to do the work, they can try to collect those damages from the contracted company. And if it causes damage to Clorox's business, then then can try to collect damages from the contracted company.
Still, if one of Clorox's customers was injured, Clorox is the one they sue, not the contractor. Recovering the damages from the contractor is on Clorox.

Floppies were the wrong answer, so is a usb stick. CDRoms (write once) or DVDs (write once) would be a good choice, though. The point is to not have the work be reviseable. Paper is pretty good for that, and so are CDRoms and DVDs.