So you are argument is "My imagination says this isn't really a problem, and that these satellites serve no useful purpose." Your imagination can tell you anything.

Not just paying customers. Operating the vehicle with passengers of any kind (not just the guy who owns it) without explicit warnings about the actual dangers and full information about it not being certified safe.

There are crimes like manslaugher and reckless endangerment too.

While it is possible, Cameron did use a conventional sphere. The whole submersible vehicle is not the crew compartment. Most of it is just buoyancy material with the operator sphere at the bottom, the same way the Trieste was built 60 years ago. But the important point here is that is was good old non-fracturing, non-delaminating steel.

The submersible features a pilot sphere, large enough for only one occupant. The sphere, with steel walls 64 mm (2.5 in) thick, was tested for its ability to withstand the required 114 megapascals (16,500 pounds per square inch) of pressure in a pressure chamber at Pennsylvania State University. The sphere sits at the base of the 11.8-tonne (13.0-short-ton) vehicle. The vehicle operates in a vertical attitude, and carries 500 kg (1,100 lb) of ballast weight that allows it to both sink to the bottom and, when released, rise to the surface.

Not exactly. The restoration brought back a king (Charles II) who had considerable power -- conducting wars, dismissing lords, granting the charter to the East India Company thus creating a rich and powerful supporter, refusing to persecute Catholics, dissolving Parliament, etc.

Parliament got a bit tired of having a powerful activist king so shortly after he died they fired the monarchy again in The Glorious Revolution of 1688 with dethroned Charles II's successor James II. This time the power rearrangement stuck. William and Mary were well aware that they served as monarchs at the pleasure of Parliament and that they could be fired and replaced. All English monarchs since have known that they need Parliament support and action for anything important they wanted to accomplish (cf George III and the "King's Friends" in Parliament).

This famous painting by Warner Sallman called “The Head of Christ” of a blue-eyed Jesus was ubiquitous in the 1950s and 1960s. The picture might be called the "Cold War Christ".

A key reason I find ChatGPT unusable is its over the top sycophancy, praising my every query with predictable cloying phrases. I might prefer one that was critical and challenging.

Then who can understand reality? I am thinking the answer is "cats". They understand reality. Which is why they seem testy and uncooperative and sulk a lot.

We now have our genetic engineering task laid out for us -- develop peacocks that have fluorescent dye in their feathers naturally (if something generically engineered can be called "natural").

If they get this on a confirmed trajectory for an impact I am going anywhere in the world I need to go to get a good view.

Slacker. I have already beaten you with my TripleHyperUltraSuperDuper Intelligence! So there!

Wait, whose the joker wither the QuadrupleHyperUltraSuperDuper ...

I spent a frustrating afternoon recently trying to get Claude.AI to look up topical quotes for me. Seemed like a natural fit for LLMs. They know everything everyone ever said, they have a representation of semantics so that it can match meanings not just tokens, so it would seem to be the perfect quote look-up tool.

I could never develop prompts that would result in it returning actual quotes --- things famous people actually said. I only got an actual quote that I could verify a few times out of hundreds of results. They were all made up quotes. They might have accurately represented the views of the people to which they were attributed (or maybe not) but the people never said the things claimed.

That is asking an inherently unreliable source of information to vouch for its reliability. It can keep lying all the way down.

Sucking all the juice out of the acquisition and leaving it an empty husk is the objective of the acquisition.

Sure, researching this is fine. The paper is not being retracted because of the topic, but because of the quality of the paper.