I'm nit optomistic that thonking thos fast is a giid odea!

I was hoping at the bottom of the article it would say that Professor Utonium accidentally added Chemical X.

The fines should be proportional to actual damage caused (ie: 100% coverage of any interest on loans, any extra spending the person needed to do in consequence, loss of compound interest, damage to credit rating along with any additional spending this resulted in, and any medical costs that can reasonably be attributed to stress/anxiety). It would be difficult to get an exact figure per person, but a rough estimate of probable actual damage would be sufficient. Add that to the total direct loss - not the money that went through any individual involved, and THEN double that total. This becomes the minimum, not the maximum. You then allow the jury to factor in emotional costs on top of that.

In such cases as this, the statutary upper limit on fines should not apply. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that laws and the Constitution can have reasonable exceptions and this would seem to qualify.

If a person has died in the meantime, where the death certificate indicates a cause of death that is medically associated with anxiety or depression, each person invovled should also be charged with manslaughter per such case.

I have not seen AI code that is *more* efficient than human code, yet. I have seen AI write efficient, compact code when pressed, very, very hard to do so, but only then. Otherwise, in my hands, and those of my developer colleagues, AI produces mostly correct, but inefficient, verbose code.

Could that change? Sure, I suppose. But right now it is not the case, and the value system that is driving auto-generated code (i.e., the training set of extant code), does not put a premium on efficiency.

Web browsers are absolute hogs, and, in part, that's because web sites are absolute hogs. Web sites are now full-blown applications that were written without regard to memory footprint or efficiency. I blame the developers who write their code on lovely, large, powerful machines (because devs should get good tools, I get that), but then don't suffer the pain of running them on perfectly good 8 GB laptops that *were* top-of-the line 10 years ago, but are now on eBay for $100. MS Teams is a perfect example of this. What a steaming pile of crap. My favored laptop is said machine, favored because of the combination of ultra-light weight and eminently portable size, and zoom works just fine on it, but teams is unusable. Slack is OK, if that's nearly the only web site you're visiting. Eight frelling GB to run a glorified chat room.

The thing that gets my goat, however, is that the laptop I used in the late 1990s was about the same form factor as this one, had 64 MB (yes, MB) of main memory, and booted up Linux back then just about as fast. If memory serves, the system took about 2 MB, once up. The CPU clock on that machine was in the 100 MHz range. Even not counting for the massive architectural improvements, my 2010s-era laptop should boot an order of magnitude faster. It does not.

Why? Because a long time ago, it became OK to include vast numbers of libraries because programmers were too lazy to implement something on their own, so you got 4, 5, 6 or more layers of abstraction, as each library recursively calls packages only slightly lower-level to achieve its goals. I fear that with AI coding, it will only get worse.

And don't get me started on the massive performance regression that so-called modern languages represent, even when compiled. Hell in a handbasket? Yes. Because CPU cycles are stupidly cheap now, and we don't have to work hard to eke out every bit of performance, so we don't bother.

My Emacs only needs 8Mb! (but it's constantly swapping)

Those issues are not new. What *is* new is that AI mimicry has lowered the bar for attacks substantially.

Just creepy crawlies looking for their 5 minutes in the spotlight while the audience is ooh-ing and aah-ing the destruction and opening their wallets to buy trinkets.

Them's there alternative facts meester! I gots plenty! It's see-ent-tuffic, y'see!

obligatory gravity well explainer

There's no overarching EU law. There are EU regulations and directives, and the member states (who each have their own state laws) must fold those directives into their own state laws in a way that fits. The regulations tend to be very targeted.

So in a manner of speaking, it's all state laws, no "federal" law, just local interpretations of "federal" directives and some common standards. And contracts in each state have to follow state law. If someone objects that a "federal" directive is broken, then they can sue the state in an EU court, etc.

A big difference with America is that a legal precedent in one state doesn't mean anything in another state. It often doesn't mean anything in the same state either. The judges interpret the legal texts, but do not create new case law. You can't refer back to some judge such-and-such who said something was ok in a similar lawsuit, so therefore it must be ok going forward in all future lawsuits.

That's a meaningless statement. The politicians frame the engagement, but that has always been the case in all wars everywhere. Read Clausewitz. There are parameters and objectives. If a general can't deliver within these parameters, it means he's not good enough.

Same if your boss is telling you to build some accounting software, and you complain that it's impossible and he should let you build a flight simulator instead.

The US is not the best military in the world. It's the best *on paper*, if the metric used is heavy on equipment and light on strategy/tactics. There's a reason the US has been losing most wars since WWII. It's not the politicians. It's guerilla warfare, which the US military is not nimble enough to handle, with its heavy emphasis on equipment and process.

Go back through history and you'll find that the generals we remember and celebrate are those who thought out of the box, it's never been a pure game of technology.

10B/1M = 10,000 per "engineer" (*). I don't know about you, but I don't get out of bed for that kind of value. Moreover, it's Microsoft money, meaning it's probably just vouchers for time on the cloud, as if that's real money.

(*) it's actually less, the budget is likely going to pay for advertising and events etc.

How do you think the AI-embracing businesses must feel, when the three employees who are left realize that their AI collaborators are all offline?