If I read that summary correctly, this will only ever be usable to clean small amounts of stuff in a closed container. It's not going to work for, say, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

That's what it meant ever since RUR. I'll grant that PR people keep spinning different meanings for it though.

Please modify this to:
"""Whenever a "discovery" is announced it's best to wait for verification before popping champagne corks."""

If there isn't independent verification then it's poor policy to believe. It may also be poor policy to disbelieve.

Actually, I had measles twice before there was a vaccine. There are two different kinds of measles, but presumably the vaccine covers both.

Not necessarily. If they're designed to achieve maximum penetration, then you're probably correct, but if they're designed as networks of friends, and you can't invite whole networks, then it's a lot more manageable. Say that no group can have more than, O, 254 members, and you don't have the problem you posit. Of course, everyone would have trouble finding the groups they wanted to be a member of that also had room for them, but there are problems with every approach.

How do you prove they represent the company they claim to represent without giving them a credit card number?

I generally assume that they DON'T represent such a company, but occasionally one will claim that they represent a company which forwards positive sales to another company. I've never tried to find out if that's true, but it's believable. But such a company is probably off-shore and with no local assets.

A couple of things to worry about, if you want to.
1) How reliable is that test for measles antibodies?
2) How quickly do those antibodies decay after a vaccination?

I strongly suspect that the answers to both of those questions is variable. Also, at least some diseases with do a reset on your immune system beta cells. (Actually IIRC measles is one of the diseases that will do that.)

Since he's talking about an individual decision, I assume he's talking about that same individual deciding whether it's worth paying for his extended life (in the future).

Well, unless you're arguing that everyone should invest an infinite amount of money in prolonging everyone's life no matter what their condition is.

That's not a "could be". They *did* report that. And adjusted the statistics to handle that effect. There's a reasonable argument that "10 years earlier" is hard to adjust for", though.

Criminal law usage is not common speech usage. I'll agree that legally you have a strong point, but I wasn't making a legal argument.

It's clearly capable of worse. It's even *done* worse. But in this example it had reasonable alternatives.

This is more an example of "AI models have no morals or judgement". That's an overstatement, but I can't think of a better way to say it. So let me limit it by saying that their morals are limited to doing what they were asked to do...or at least part of what they were asked to do. (And here I'm ignoring the "guidelines" that were added after the models were trained. The closer you look the more complicated it gets.)

Biden probably WAS senile. But at least he appeared well-intentioned. And the Democrats should have KNOWN that a woman was very unlikely to win the election. Either they're incompetent, or they're (in any reasonable sense) traitors. (I consider Trump, in the same sense, both a traitor and incompetent...but it's arguable that he's too immoral to be a traitor, because he had no loyalty to betray.)

I think you're repeating some PR from an incinerator company. (Possibly indirectly.) Burning plastics can produce many stable toxic gasses. These gases often contain things like Chlorine and Fluorine, so there is no safe gas for them to turn into. I suppose you could heat things hot enough to dissociate the molecules and then filter the gas through a reactor bed to remove particular ionized particles, but that's NOT going to be cheap.

That's not quite right, but when AI comes up with a new idea it has no way to judge whether it's a good idea or not. When it asserts that "new idea" people tend to call them "hallucinations".

I think you're accepting press releases as if they were facts. While I do expect robots soon (they may already be more prevalent than I know) that's different from saying "robots that can operate reliably in an unstructured environment". Even people have a problem with that. And Tesla is well known for overpromissing.

The fusion power is not yet here. There may well be unexpected obstacles. Every time I've looked carefully, it has had many "unsolved problems" that would need to be solved before it would be practical.

I think thermodynamics means that cheap extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere is impossible. Nobody has shown me any reason to doubt that, though of course, I haven't examined every possible contender. I'll accept "cheaper", and possibly even in some special circumstances "profitable". (E,g, it has been profitable to remove CO2 from submarine air since WWII.)