Couldn't have said it better myself. Productivity measured how? None of these statistics and 10-30% is pretty bad if it's just productivity in "generating code" - slamming out code is usually the wrong choice. A good senior developer makes strategic decisions that improve the maintainability of code and fix problems that nobody's even reported yet, AI won't do that.

This is the most useless idea I've ever heard and I work in tech so that's saying something.

it will take about the same amount of time, because the AI is going to get shit wrong and it will take more time Debugging the AI produced content Take two real programmers do it.

Sounds great in theory, but I would remove that last requirement. At least in general. The only thing that the emulator should not be allowed to do is not enable the creation of copies Of the titles that it emulates. If it enables a player to cheat, it shouldn't matter, because the publisher is no longer supporting the game.

Think about it. What an endgame is discontinued, and that publisher has gone on to move on to other things, and then the EU comes along and says no wait you can't do that, you've gone to continue to support this game. no, I don't think that it's fair for the U2 force companies to have to do this

This feels like a bait article honestly. And here I am falling for the bait.

Launch costs oh yeah lets just handwave away the climate impact of that. Never mind how expensive it is to launch things either, the cost of hardware and installation doesn't matter if the CO2 goes down (except that it does because that money could be used to save CO2 emissions somewhere else, obviously).

The obvious latency issues. The wildly unreasonable cost of what it takes to fix anything that fails in orbit. I could go on but my main point here is why is this even featured here? It's obviously a garbage idea with no future.

Sorry, but dairy farmers are not contributing significantly to the warming of the planet. Yes, the cows generate greenhouse gasses, but so does every living thing on the planet that isn't a plant.

All this tax will end up accomplishing is diminishing dairy production.

That's what it looks like, alas,,,, it appears to be the case that the fans want her voice as the computer more than Paramount does.

From what I understand, Barret evidently gave permission for her voice to continue to be used in future Star Trek TV and films posthumously, but the Roddenberry estate has decided not to allow it for some reason, and since they possess the recordings that she did which would allow an AI to duplicate her voice, there is nothing that can be done.

Susan Benet has not been the voice behind Siri for a number of years now. The Siri voice is entirely AI generated.

... it never promote any posts by individuals or on subjects that were not specifically searched for by the end user. In other words, rather than using some sort of algorithm to try to predict what the user would want to see based on previous interests or people's posts, store only a list of their contacts and previous specific searches on the platform... the *only* thing it should promote to that user are posts which would match the user's own explicitly provided preferences... take all of the guesswork out of it, and remove concepts of "hey, you showed interested in X, so maybe you'd like to see some of Y". Anything that does not match previously explicitly mentioned preferences should not be highlighted to a user, and do not even give the end user the option to allow the company to make alternative suggestions. An end user must also be able to flag any post as one that did not meet their search criteria, so that their searches can be fine tuned.... it should not be an excuse to remove the post, but a reason to exclude it, or similar ones. from that person's feed.

Only after a person has explicitly added a person as a contact, should content from that person start regularly being highlighted in one's own feed.

The only suggestions that the social media company can make to newcomers are possible contacts.... those who have a high number of followers or are geographically proximate. Even then, none of a person's posts should ever automatically appear on a person's feed until they have explicitly added that person as a contact, not simply because they may have checked out a particular person's content.

Beyond that, the only other thing that should appear in a person's social media feed are advertisements, if the social media platform is otherwise free to use, and every ad should have an option to flag it as not being one that the user wants to see, so that ads of that type of content are not presented to the user again.

So when a person first joins a social media company all they see are ads, and perhaps suggestions for contacts that they can voluntarily choose to follow.

I was unaware of that... I was only aware of what the treaty actually did prohibit, and at the time that the treaty was formed, there were no nuclear weapons in space.

I think that the biggest reason why generally weapons, even if they were expressly defined in the treaty, were probably rejected out of hand by the USA, is that ultimately there are people that would ultimately be interested in waging war regardless of such a treaty, and that certain types of weaponry may be necessary to defend one's own territories, without being directly used to attack another.

Which, I'm aware, is not dissimilar from the argument that a lot of people use to justify the second amendment of the USA.... but just as the treaty did ultimately prohibit nuclear weapons in space, the government could still reasonably have the freedom to impose limitations on the kinds of weapons a person in the USA was allowed to possess.

Enlighten me as to which union you are speaking of.

Modern cars are made by machines, not people. They haven't been made by hand in decades.

Perhaps you were unaware that for the past few decades, cars are made mostly by machines.... sure there is the wear and tear on the robots that build them and their maintenance, but this is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of the vehicles themselves.

I think the reason why all weapons were not banned in space and why it was vetoed is simply because the definition of "weapon" is too broad, and the mere act of enabling any sort of communication with countries you might happen to be at war with can be interpreted as a "weapon" from that nation's point of view. WMD, however, is quite unambiguous.

I have no facts to back up this opinion... it is just my own personally held belief. If someone has some cold hard facts to refute it, I'm open to the debate.