It's not a remotely level playing field. One soldier who took part in the Venezuela raid basically had orders in hand when he placed multiple bets on the timing of the raid, netting a ton of money. There have been many other examples of inside information being used to stack the odds.

This is absolutely not true. There are plenty of people in the financial side of a business that have information that is material but non-public, and trading based on that knowledge is illegal, including sudden cuts in spending, audit results prior to publication, and more. HR will be aware of major layoffs. Facilities might be aware of impending site closures before they're announced. All these things can be used for insider trading.

Lower-level people aren't usually pursued because they're small enough to fly under the radar. But that doesn't mean it's not illegal, and it doesn't mean it never happens.

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.)