Apple's customers love being treated with contempt

"Because everyone knows from Verizon and AT&T that if you give them money to do something without the threat of jail time for not doing it, it won't get done."

Why bother with this comparison? We know it from Elon Musk. Tesla pricing has nothing to do with cost to manufacture, EV subsidies didn't lower prices of Teslas at all.

"October sales were garbage because manufacturers haven't lowered the price yet to compensate for the loss of the subsidy..."

Some did, and their sales were not off as much.

"The whole point of the tax credit was to incentivize MANUFACTURERS to make EVs, by allowing them to raise the price of an EV by the amount of the tax credit."
No, it is to pay the incremental startup costs of new technology. But that's the original time-limited incentive. The unlimited incentive was just a grift, an acknowledgement that the EV industry was just pocketing the money. And by EV industry, it's really just Elon Musk. No other company sold enough.

Wait, federal doesn't apply to everyone in the world?

"(... to US people, at least)"

LOL, a real sophisticated take. You're definitely superior to Car & Driver and /. editors

"How does a human, composed of neurons with deterministic behavior, become conscious?"

There is no "how", there just is. A human is born conscious.

And a human is more than just deterministic neurons. It's sensors and hormones, plus a lot of inherited programming. A human is aware when it gets damaged, but because of neurons but because of sensors. A human has eyes, it can see itself, feel itself, and figure out what that means.

humans may be " biological machines running algorithms" but that doesn't mean computer programs can be conscious. A human is much more than a computer.

After all, modern cars have many computers, but not all computers can be cars, even though may be able to run the software.

"There is enough evidence to show the real us is a spiritual being interfacing with a human body."

Citations please. And not the Bible.

Humans created the word "conscious" to describe something they experience. Whatever consciousness is, humans have it.

"There is quite a bunch of solid evidence that what we call consciousness originates in the different levels of brain..."

Citations please.

"Why shouldn't a non-biological brain setup be able to do the exact same things?"

LOL maybe because a non-biological brain doesn't have this arbitrary two hemispheres interacting?

"Those countless AI CPUs going into "model rearranging" mode..."

Citations please

" It even happens in the same intervals (based on our sleep and wake cycle)."

Citations please

"...bodies with loads of secondary sensory input..."

That's a HUGE fucking difference, but sure it's two hemispheres talking. Pain has nothing to do with a survival "instinct", right? And what are "instincts" anyway? And does an AI have those, or does an AI merely learn from instinctive output of humans?

"...hormones and gradual shifts in body and brain metabolism."

An enormous difference. Hormones doing all sorts of crazy things that AI doesn't "experience".

It does, because VC's and politicians are stupid. Marc Andreessen does not know this, he just needs his next billion as soon as possible.

Corporations are non-biological beings and they are legally considered persons. They shouldn't be, but that horse left the barn.

Sure, but it's neither the wrong question nor does the wrong question lead to a wrong answer. The wrong question leads to answer than is not what you need, but not a wrong answer. It's pretty shitty logic, in fact not logic at all. And it's also wrong to claim, as you said.

But at least he's right that no one should work on that because modern AI cannot be conscious. Work on what it would take, perhaps, then don't do that.

We don't have a technical definition of it, so we can't say if an AI is capable of it.

What we do know is that a living being is massively greater than a mere neural network and it is absurd to think that conciousness is entirely within the neurons of the brain. It is just hype when AI proponents claims that current AI might be conscious, but it is conceivable that a future device WITH an AI as we understand it could be conscious. Self-preservation needs something to preserve, and today an AI is merely a computer program with no concept of itself or how it connects to its "body". An AI can't feel pain or pleasure, it cannot suffer, but future devices could do these things. Needs a lot more wiring and more functional components beyond billions of synthetic neurons. Sorry, Sam and Elon.

"This was clearly a kill command, and after he reversed it and rebooted the appliance, it roared back to life."

oh yeah, just reverse the kill command!

"...at least that's what a market capitalist should answer..."
What's a market capitalist? If you mean capitalist, you are clearly wrong. If you mean believer in free markets, I believe you are also wrong. What you are describing is ethical behavior, capitalism is not about ethical behavior and free markets are supposed to apply pressure to capitalism to cause ethical behaviors (but not require them).

"...most importantly the ability to walk away from a purchase."
That requires free markets. We don't have free markets in the world of web browsers. We lack free markets pervasively and that is getting worse all the time.

"...it's effectively impossible for that user to make that choice..."
Yes, of course. And that will always be true, so users must rely on the integrity of the tool publishers. That integrity doesn't exist.

"...we can outright ban it or regulate it so heavily to cause a large retraction in its size."
We can? That seems like a giant technical problem to overcome, one in which the beneficiaries of the banned behaviors have all the power.

This is why I don't believe anyone in the web and browser business is trying to make a better web. An open web, as we currently understand it, will always be a cesspool.