In Germany, any company can get its online reviews purged of everything that isn't positive, simply by paying some lawyer a hundred bucks or so. They'll tell Google that each and every undesired review is fraudulent. They'll even go so far as to claim, against evidence to the contrary, that whoever posted the review was never a customer. Google will contact all the reviewers and ask for proof. In front of that law that makes this possible, you're guilty by default. It's on you, the reviewer, to prove your innocence, or else your review gets deleted. I hate it. Reviews in Germany are worthless. Honest/poor/clueless businesses bear their mark, while the scummy ones, that reviews are supposed to warn you away from, just clean their reviews until they shine and sparkle.

Your right stops where anyone takes offence to what you say, or what they think you meant.

200 complaints probably amounts to less than one hour of bicyclist interactions with meatbag drivers. California-wide of course. I also find it hilarious that the abstract implies that MOST of those complaints involving autonomous mobiles are due to two brands: Cruise and Waymo. Are they so over-represented in Cali, or does this imply that other auto-mobile makers are doing fine?

2038 is not "the epoch". That's a certain amount of seconds PAST the epoch. Real high quality article there.

The Spirit of Libraries is free access to knowledge, for everyone. Publishers need to be reined in. If you don't, their greed will run everything. These judges need a splash of cold water in their faces. They are supposed to serve the people. Sure sure, "but the law says". Then also blame the lawmakers that enable this. The Spirit of Libraries is free access to knowledge, for everyone.

Not planned. Miscalculated. In High Performance Computing, you have two "camps". Lots of software is closed-source and licensed. Engineering is like that. Lots of software has some legacy, which consists of running on CPUs and using all the abilities of a CPU, allowing the code to run complex logic, but not fitting a GPU programming model. That was often parallelized across multiple nodes (hosts), e.g. with MPI (a thing since the 90s). Multithreading was also used, but that required multi-socket nodes or multi-core CPUs to really make sense. And then you have the camp that fully leaned into GPGPU. Intel had no experience doing a GPU or vector processor, so they aimed for the CPU-only holdouts. Xeon Phi contained x86 cores without 64-bit, and I think missing a few other aspects of a "real" x86 core. They tacked some variant of AVX512 on. So now that Phi thing isn't a regular CPU, and it doesn't have GPU performance. You still had to recompile your program to run it on a Phi. Couldn't just take some (closed source?) executable and run it. Xeon Phi was a specialty item, not a mass market product, so the price point was another matter. Intel did learn. They eventually developed integrated GPUs (GPU in the CPU). Now they finally entered the discrete GPU market with their "Arc". Some generations of Intel desktop CPUs came with AVX512 but newer ones don't. It's just not worth it on x86/x86-64.

you seem to mean the pre-2018 ACM Codes (https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/previous-versions/). the 2018 code is completely in line with the current political purges and witch hunts.