I watch a lot of maritime disaster videos, so YouTubeâ(TM)s genius algorithm thinks Iâ(TM)d be interested in traveling on a cruise ship.

Strange article. Can someone point me to a reference that says HawkEye Live uses AI? I don't believe it does, at least I can't find reference to it (For example this article https://www.independent.co.uk/...). It uses a bunch of cameras to track the trajectory of the ball and calculates whether it was out or not. I can't see an AI use case there. The problem seems to be some goon had turned it off, not the technology itself.

Incorrect. Jet fuel is stored in a collection of tanks at an airport. One tank can be contaminated with, for instance, water, and this can be pumped into a single truck and loaded into a one aircraft. This has happened before. The fact that no other aircraft suffered bad fuel means nothing.

It could also be a case of debris in fuel, severely restricting fuel flow. The engines run at idle fine, but sometime after power is applied and the debris clogs pickups, the engines will fail. This has also happened to commercial aircraft.

Where are you getting that from? The purpose of a RAT is to sustain power. It will deploy automatically under a variety of conditions, including dual engine failure on takeoff.

All this bit of spin tells us is that the aircraft wasn't grossly misconfigured by the crew. Great.

This is going to be bad fuel. But that won't come out for a long time, because it will put the fault on a state operated airline, from a state operated airport, investigated by that state's authority. If India could plausibly pin this on a Boeing design fault they would be shouting it from the mountain tops, and they've had nearly 3 weeks to analyze the complete data set from both flight data+voice recorders. That fact that what we're getting, instead, is spin stories like this, should tell you everything you need to know.

That's the idea. Get this system fully optimized and serialized, we can develop all the farm land into thousands of cute little off-grid gated exurbs. Everything needed to protect ourselves from the hoi polloi when we outlaw their fossil fuel.

Well, your buying power would be crippled.

Their kids didn't. Treating everyone like an island is ultimately the purest form of the cancer that infects the US.

"those goals seem to be nearly impossible to attain"

Is it impossible to obtain - the national ethos sees absolutely no problem with the unbounded consolidation of wealth and power, so long as it is in the private sector.

The joke is the private sector is so powerful at this point, your public sector is just a sock with the private sector's hand up its ass.

That'll never change as long as the concept of even moderate, reasonable redistribution of wealth is a national non-starter. It's impressive watching the way the US twists itself this way and that, where everybody is just a temporarily embarrassed billionaire voting for less taxes, less spending to make their supposed future rich selves happy for when they finally join the billionaire class.

Sure, itâ(TM)s quite possible for two people to exchange offhand remarks about the local weather apropos of nothing, with no broader point in mind. It happens all the time, even, I suppose, right in the middle of a discussion of the impact of climate change on the very parameters they were discussing.

The thing to understand is we're talking about sixth tenths of a degree warming since 1990, when averaged over *the entire globe* for the *entire year*. If the change were actually distributed that way -- evenly everywhere over the whole year -- nobody would notice any change whatsoever; there would be no natural system disruption. The temperature rise would be nearly impossible to detect against the natural background variation.

That's the thinking of people who point out that the weather outside their doors is unusually cool despite global warming. And if that was what climate change models actually predicted, they'd be right. But that's not what the models predict. They predict a patchwork of some places experiencing unusual heat while others experience unusual coolness, a patchwork that is constantly shifting over time. Only when you do the massive statistical work of averaging *everywhere, all the time* out over the course of the year does it manifest unambiguously as "warming".

In the short term -- over the course of the coming decade for example, -- it's less misleading to think of the troposphere becoming more *energetic*. When you consider six tenths of a degree increase across the roughly 10^18 kg of the troposphere, that is as vast, almost unthinkable amount of energy increase. Note that this also accompanied by a *cooling* of the stratosphere. Together these produce a a series of extreme weather events, both extreme heat *and* extreme cold, that aggregated into an average increase that's meaningless as a predictor of what any location experiences at any point in time.

Nothing. SpaceX is doing fine. Starship is ambitious. It is also being developed in a manner not suitable to the sensibilities of the Western aerospace commentariat. SpaceX performs many tests, analyzes many failures and refines designs accordingly. This produces great designs at low cost, in less time, and many dramatic RUDs. The Russians did the same. They performed many tests on initially flawed designs and fixed the flaws they discovered until they had confidence in their designs.

The traditional Western, big aerospace way, as we can clearly see with SLS is to take a decade or more and consumes oceans of money analyzing a paper design beyond any conceivable failure mode. This works, but it's extremely expensive, glacially slow, and suitable only for national superpower scale budgets funding cost plus contractors with little to no thought given to a feasible long term business model. That's why all their marquee designs are now historic, and the next one is still nascent, wildly over budget, years late and likely redundant.

So don't worry too much about the deep thoughts of our professional spectators. You can be absolutely certain that Musk doesn't.

You'd think Broadcom et al. would pitch a fit given the billions they've spent developing Wi-Fi standards that include 6 GHz, developing 6 GHz devices, etc. It's not just owners of existing equipment. It's an entire industry that has been investing in 6 GHz Wi-Fi for years now.

I am saying I have no patience for the drearily predictable "quality" and "safety" FUD. There are severe problems in healthcare. Bad enough to risk neglecting our worship of medical authority. Bad enough to risk suffering possible unknown failures as an alternative to our chronic known failures.

This presumes we have quality. Do you believe that, without doubt? I don't. I have a lifetime of anecdotal evidence of failures by doctors, personally and among family, friends and others. Without (hopefully) inviting a deluge of corroboration, I can assure you the people reading this now can bury us in such stories.

Beyond that, we are in desperate need of lower cost solutions for medicine. You're free to attribute the extreme costs we see however you wish, but finger pointing won't fix it: the powers and interests involved aren't listening. What is needed is a disruption, and this looks like a real possibility. I, at least, don't immediately dismiss it with AMA FUD.

I agree. Questions like this often seem to come from people who don’t *want* to use AI, or perhaps are afraid of it for whatever reason, and they’re looking for reasons that they shouldn’t use it.