Fun, let's do that.

20% employees, 50% revenue: win
0% employees, 0% revenue: absolute win, nothing wasted on dead weight at all!

You seem to be making the assumption that 100% of the revenue is spent on employees.

What I see is that each additional employee creates more revenue. Even at diminuishing returns, more is more.
And by making four fifths of the workforce redundant, investors are getting less return on investment.

But somehow you book that as a win.

nt

They would rather pay a fine than have researchers study their data.

It looks like that they are hiding something big that is more dangerous than the EU revoking their charter.

See, if he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't have needed to get rid of even circumstantial evidence.

(An actual argument that was used in a different case where an innocent man died in prison.)

Fascinating. According to this paper, previous major mass extinctions coincide with the sun crossing the galactic plane.

It is as if there is something about the location within the Milky Way that makes complex biospheres (or preventing major disasters) more or less likely. Zones of... something or other.

Or maybe it is just coincidence.

True, there is no language that makes it difficult to write horrible code.

Not even domain specific ones.

Home networks do need SNMP. How else would you know that your network printer is running low in ink?

A lot of home automation equipment also uses SNMP, although MQTT has become more popular in recent years.

The router not having ports of its own open on the internet side seems reasonable, but ISPs want to be able to remotely configure their modem routers at their customers.

The best way to hijack a router is from the internal side anyway. JavaScript in web ads can do wonders.

Nor should it need to. That's the concern of the web daemon.

Separation of concerns. Modularity. Keep it small and simple.

...?

My little explanation was nowhere near that thorough!

Of course Claude doesn't work just like human consciousness. That would be ridiculous.
And that's not the claim they are making either. Merely that they found something that resembles something that they think is part of human consciousness.

The point I was trying to make is not related to that. I only pointed out that science is not completely ignorant on the nature of consciousness. It is not supernatural, and meaningful comparisons are possible.

I don't know who "we" is.

There is a lot that is known and understood if you care to learn.

The fundamental thing about experiments is that they are repeatable. Neither subjective nor unfalsifiable.

What a coincidence, so do I:

"In physics, imagination is more important than mathematics."

(He later won a Nobel prize for proving quantum mechanics.)

I'm not sure what the point of this is, but anecdotes are not data.

Oh boy.

Let me teach you about the burden of proof. It was formulated by a guy named Bertrand Russel. He was a mathematician and a philosopher.

The burden of proof is something that is borne by someone making a claim.
What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

The claim that consciousness, something that has only been observed and studied within the physical universe, could exist without a physical substrate wherein it occurs, is white an extraordinary claim, and is not supported by any evidence. As such, it can be dismissed without evidence.

On the other hand, there are numerous different experiments that show that consciousness does not occur without physical processes. Which is not extraordinary at all. (Cybernetics, for example, is about the study and design of systems that direct themselves.) So there is plenty of experimental evidence that suggests that consciousness not only occurs withing the physical universe (and it has never been observed outside of it), but could not exist without it.

It's science, not Science, and you can read up on the evidence. I provided a few pointers. Listing it all would take years.
(There are many experiments you can do at home.)

Somebody did dare to do it before. And did not face drastic legal implications.

True, but you may be interested to know that Google maintains a page cache (you could click on the link or click on Google's cached copy), and uses it for commercial purposes (they are one of the largest advertising agencies).

AI has no moat.