Cars cannot drive themselves. If a car can drive itself, then an AGI might begin to be possible. I don't see that happening anytime soon - in the UK we have many roads that require people to signal do each other via feelings, waving and generally having a non verbal discussion. Self driving is miles away from this, and is but a small part of the tasks an AGI must be able to perform. AGI needs to drive before I will consider it truly intelligent. Wake me when this happens.

No https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Let's not forget that!

This is standard behaviour for most large exchanges - Binance definitely do the same, and anyone that says your wallet keys are "private". The only way to actually hold crypto "safely" (if there is such a thing) is on the mainnet. All these exchanges just run their own private chain and "swap" backwards and forwards to the mainnet (if required). This means they go poof so does their network, and your tokens. Nice isn't it? This area is pretty technical, and given how much people are willing to put into these digital assets they really should do their homework if this is a surprise.

Proprietary connectors are like proprietary web tags. There has been the mad dash through standards - adding data, power, size enhancements along the way. We are currently at USB-C, which seems a fairly good connector. * Works both way up * up to 100W power * Thunderbolt level data performance - including high res display. * Size is reasonably small * Flexible configuration from just power to all the list above, and a way common way to work out what to provide without setting fire to stuff. * Broad industry support - I have a Switch, iPad Pro, MacBookPro, Dell Latitude, cameras, Nest thermometers etc all using USB-C connectors. In fact I haven't got much other than my phone that doesn't use either a kettle lead or a USB-C connector Thunderbolt is slightly smaller. But worse in every other way. Time for the standard bodies to take over. Apple just want to push people to buy an expensive alternative for their own benefit.

Seems a weak attempt at marketing from Google. If you want to see it done better look up the Elements app. This web page looks like something knocked up in an afternoon. Inspiring it ain't.

"Programming is hard" is edited to "Programming is *mostly* hard" Done.

This is the same situation as France a few weeks ago - another Western nation trying to grapple with the enormous amplification effect the internet has. Most countries don't actually take the US view of freedom of speech is a right without limit. Americans may disagree with this notion, but it does have some sensible rationale: 1) Civil disorder is brought about by people disagreeing very strongly with one another. 2) The internet short circuits those disagreements - allowing people with opposite views to be fed a constant stream of things they abhor. 3) The role of government is to keep the nation functioning and ideally stable. There are many routes to achieve this, and the internet has posed a new challenge to the notion that stuff in the margins stays there. Instead it moves it into view and within hours is everywhere. For people in power, the internet is beginning to look like anarchy.

And it falls from Facebook posts. Is this a major problem? There are many other ways for people to express themselves.

The notebook example is not quite correct, what Facebook do is more akin to "write what you think on a notebook" and then I'll photocopy it and post it thru everyone's letter box around the world. Just their costs are cheaper than the post office. The distribution is different to the medium used for the message (which is why I don't think the internet is under threat by this). I am not French, but I believe that is the way they are looking at it, and whilst its "un-American", its not a crazy point of view - in the past people have been guillotined and hung for similar dispersal in many countries. I think several people have recently been fired in the US administration for representing other peoples views on many issues. So "freedom of speech" is an illusion already - you can say it, but it might lead to ... consequences.

It doesn't fine speech. It fines the platforms for carrying it. The individual remains unaffected. Important distinction.

You misunderstand still. I am not disputing the person's right to say what they want. I am talking about platform and therefore implied validation. The issue is larger for Facebook than for the individual engaging in "hate" speech. As mentioned many places can be used to host something, and in most countries certain things are illegal to post - handgun blueprints, terrorist manuals, child pornography etc. By hosting these items on behalf of the poster the platform is adding their voice to the debate, and *intrinsically* validating it. This is actually a big problem for American companies operating outside of America - bigger than they realise. You don't have to agree with the French position on some topic, but if you want to do business there with their citizens, you must obey their laws. Same goes for America, and for China. The nation state is very much alive, just a few enlightened hippies tried to persuade the world to forget it for a while. This law shows those days are over. Expect most other countries to follow within the next 20 years (even the most liberal).

Not what I said - I said the private platforms need to take responsibility for their platforms, much as newspapers and other media has had to for years. The internet is not the target, and will always contain unpalatable views. However agency is given by the platform. I can post hate speech on my own web page. That seems acceptable - the server it resides on it mine, and its connected to a wire that takes it out of the building. If however I pay someone for a server to host this information, they are culpable in my wording. In a complaint they can decide do they want to fight it or bin it. Internet giants are in fact no different - e.g. child porn, but are trying to keep up the illusion they aren't in the debate because of advertising revenue. They are.

So Facebook can no longer post things that the French society deems unacceptable, or in other words: a private company no longer has to give platform to people with socially unacceptable views to the society it lives in. Who suffers from this? People with a message French society doesn't like, and in part Facebook as they can no longer get their audience. Facebook is a private company that gives platform to people to put out their views, and by extension, I think, endorses them simply by broadcasting them to many. Americans seem to feel any third party on the internet that doesn't amplify everyone's voice is violating "free speech". News flash "free speech" != "free platform". Private platforms have a responsibility to curate their messages. This does not hurt free speech. People must find other platforms for their hate speech, but private companies should not be it. Note if this was a legal proceeding or a matter of public record I would be concerned. It's not. It's a timeline curated by a private company. Long past time these platforms should be immune (if they ever should have been) for amplifying in their name socially unacceptable views for the sake of revenue, and then hiding behind the "no responsibility" argument.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... This idea broke him 150 years ago. Perhaps weâ(TM)ll have better luck this time...