Guessing... Click; amber light; hum, fan whir, beeping; click; green lights?

(At least that's how my APC SUA750XL does it.)

Nah, they'd probably just bump into Trump and say, "Excuse - I mean pardon - me." /s

Maybe it's to Make Germany Great Again? /s
I'm sure that would track with this administration (*cough* Stephen Miller *cough*) and its supporters...

And they obscure the ocean view from his beach-front golf course in Scotland.
(He lost the legal battle to have hem stopped/removed.)

How Trump's loathing for wind turbines started with a Scottish court battle

I'm not keen on tying ourselves with Florida in any way.

(I say this after having spent my freshman year at USF in Tampa way back.)

TFA: "If you want to ban profiting from the failure of clinical trials, you would start with the stock market, where the financial incentive for this type of profit is orders of magnitude larger," said Kalshi spokesman Jack Such, pointing to stock market short sellers who have profited from clinical trial failures. "While Kalshi and the stock market are the same in this regard, they do differ in one important way: the stock market doesn't give any valuable information to researchers," Such said.

This is either ignorant and/or maliciously deceptive for the simple fact that there are rules against insider trading. Investors in pharmaceutical companies are not (or at least, should not be) privy to modifying the conduct of a trial in order to secure or deny approval. There is no similar oversight for these betting markets. Sure, they might say that your wager could be disqualified if it comes out that you interfered in the outcome, but that is little comfort for the trial participants and the drug sponsors, who can't just hop into a time machine and run it back.

And that's why there are so many regulations surrounding the conduct of clinical trials. People might argue that there is corruption and untoward influence already--that FDA approvals (especially under the current administration) are not necessarily based purely on scientific and medical legitimacy. But that's a very strange argument to put forth in defense of enabling MORE interference.

While I'm at it, let's also just shut down the absurd idea that betting markets somehow facilitate better information sharing about novel treatments. The point of these trials is to gather the evidence in an unbiased, objective, scientific way. Betting on them is not going to gather you any more meaningful evidence than what the trial designers have specified in the study protocol. The idea that "the market is efficient" is not in any meaningful sense a scientific approach to deciding whether an investigational product actually works. If that were the case, the FDA would be basing approvals off stock prices.

Honestly, who do these assholes think they're fooling? The only reason why they want to do this is because the house takes their cut, win or lose.

We can debate ad nauseam about the appropriateness of Asimov's laws, their historical context, how he as a SF writer applied them in his work, whether or not he was "right," etc. But the essential problem remains: the current framework that we are using to develop these technologies are inadequate for the purpose of ensuring safety.

Now, some people would argue otherwise--that, to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Every technology has the potential for misuse. Nothing can ever be 100% safe. And I don't dispute this, but that is also not the point, because, again, the central question of safety has to do with designing systems that will not destroy us. We're not talking about individual adverse impacts--which, mind you, we should strive to avoid as well--but the kind of technology that has the potential for global impact. Not enough effort has been made to safeguard against this contingency.

And we also have people who would say that such worries are needlessly alarmist, and assert that current systems are nowhere near that level of capability. That may be true. But that kind of thinking is much like climate change denialism in that it is rooted in a failure to anticipate and plan. Scientists warned us about climate change over 50 years ago and nothing was done; the evidence continues to mount and there still are people who have a financial and political motive to deny it. And for similar motives, there are people who insist on moving forward incautiously, with no regard for safety or ethics or consequences, because it gives them power and money.

I'm less interested in the specifics about whether Asimov's laws are appropriate or sufficient or correctly ordered, than I am about what we actually need to do as a race to prevent disasters. Let the historical record show that have been profoundly cavalier--we literally discovered planet-destroying science (nuclear fission) and then treated it like a toy. I don't think it is unreasonable to express doubts about our ability to have learned our lesson.

Aren't most of the stories written around these three rules about ambiguities and loopholes, how they're incomplete, misinterpreted, misapplied and how things otherwise go wrong - for us humans? An AI determining that humans must be perpetually babysat to prevent them from injuring themselves or others is a common storyline.

The Asimov Problem

Cats followed by glass buildings kill orders of magnitude more birds than wind turbines, which are about 9th on the list.

No, President Trump: Wind turbines aren't killing 'all the birds.' Cats are.

Wind Turbines & Birds: Myths & Facts Uncovered

Even worse? Running a business like Trump runs a business - or a casino (six filed for bankruptcy).
Businesses of Donald Trump that went bankrupt (24)

Rand Paul and Republicans in Congress too. /s

That or Helix ... or ...