The vast majority of people have neither the theoretical background, nor the necessary attention span for understanding how an AI model works. You can catch up on the theory if you have the attention span. My parents, for example, never got around to even using computers. My uncle, however, did. He did not become a programer, but he could use a computer somewhat comfortably, although he did fall victim to fraudsters once.
So, keep reading, look up wikipedia and youtube for learning, and keep your pins private. You'll be fine.

Playing outside is for free. Excluding maybe shoes, a ball or similar equipment and the occasional band-aid.

You're missing the point. It's not about electronics per se, but DRM. Audio quality is irrelevant. So, unless that electronic turntable is monitoring what it is playing and cross-references that to a database of your licensed music, or needs a stupid app to work (I hope I'm not giving them ideas...), then your argument is moot.

GP's statement smelled a bit off, so I did the googling and found this: https://spectator.sme.sk/busin... The citet article is paywalled. Dunno if it's legit or not, but it still smells bad: Of all things thinkable, why would you waste the energy?!

You mean, you went on to the second paragraph and found it better?

No, but if you were shown that one of the *other* doors has a goat behind it, would you decide to stick to your original door choice, or choose the 3rd door instead?

Back in my day, we solved this using CVS and LaTeX. You can use Git now.

på?! First the ± symbol and now this?! Did Slashdot fix its Unicode support?! Did I miss the article, or did Slashdot fail to report its own news for nerds and stuff that matters?!

I will not pretend I understand the paper, but this is a big deal! I find it annoyingly funny that the very mathematical definition of the continuity hypothesis (on which fluid dynamics is based), that the density equals the limit of DeltaMass/DeltaVolume for DeltaVolume going to zero, will break up if you actually apply it in reality: for volumes down at the atomic level the mass is not equally distributed anymore unless you use probabilities. This is very helpful in explaining some fluid dynamic principles, like Bernoulli's principle. Deng et al. got our back!

Does it also work when you have a bleeding nose and a broken jaw? Asking for a friend.

+1 Funny, because it's funny.
+1 Insightful, because you should *really* not forget your error bars.
+1000 Interesting, because you used the actual ± symbol. I had to look up how to do it.

Getting to the moon, or mars, in general only requires a single push. Without drag there is nothing to slow down the spacecraft afterwards and you don't need to keep pushing. So you can push once against the magnetic field of the earth if you are pointed in the right direction, and also get to your destination in a reasonable amount of time. The actual questions are: 1. can you push hard enough for accelerating to a reasonable velocity within a reasonable time? 2. What about correction burns/pushes? I suppose you will still need conventional thrusters for course corrections.

They were thought to be dwarfed Homo erectus. Homo erectus is not a modern human.

Well, one thing you're missing is the fact that when humans learn something, they don't start from scratch. The driving instructor teaches you not only the basic rules, but also empirical cues so that you can learn quickly. Ditto for chess, learned and self-obtained experience informs the grandmaster that some opening moves are better than others. Those others and their algorithmic children don't need to be checked. A computer brute forcing a problem like chess or driving will be lousy, but if you give it more empirical information (weights and biases), like teaching a human, it will perform better.

Nobody said that horsepower was based on a *good* horse...