So if AI is a "co-author", but can't be an author, that just leaves the human as the sole author.

DeepMind is the core of Google's AI research, and it began as a UK company that Google purchased. It's still the case that the bulk of their core researchers are there. Ceasing operations in the UK would not only cost them a lot more than the US DoD will ever pay them, it would also cost them a lot of critical AI expertise.

I don't either. Can you spell it out?

To what, exactly? The answer to that question matters quite a bit.

Tariffs, deportations, attacks on drug boats, wars... almost all of the illegal shit the Trump administration has done could easily have been made legal by the GOP-controlled Congress. Early on in Trump 2.0 I wrote several letters to my very MAGA Senator, Mike Lee, begging him to sponsor and support legislation to do exactly that. Not because I thought the things Trump wanted to do were good but because I saw huge potential harm to the Republic if Congress just allowed the executive to flout the law.

Of course, Lee never responded to me. At all. And never lifted a finger to provide actual authorization for Trump's lawbreaking -- and, of course, Trump never asked the GOP Congress to do it.

The only reasonable conclusion is that Trump and the GOP (and SCOTUS) don't want the president to be constrained by law, and so Trump is deliberately doing all of this without Congressional approval in order to firmly establish the precedent that he doesn't need Congressional approval. He's doing the same thing now with the Iran war, having run out the 60-day clock but refusing even to ask Congress to authorize him to continue. GOP leadership is waffling, making up stuff (not found in the law!) about how the 60-day clock "stops" during a temporary ceasefire.

The truth is that Trump wants to be King, and the GOP wants him to be King. If Mike Johnson and John Thune wanted to, they could make Trump's actions lawful, but they want him to be able to ignore the law.

Sure, and for those really severe issues we draw hard lines in somewhat arbitrary places, based on broad averages. And for some of them we also don't get too aggressive about parents who transgress the rules in small ways -- for example, if you let your 15 year-old son have a beer on a fishing trip you're technically committing a crime but no one is going to prosecute you. The same is true for helping a kid to bypass age checks to access social media or whatever.

You lack imagination, then. And, how would this be any different from school counselors and similar who regularly do these same sorts of things, though typically with a focus on education rather than, say, maturity for social media use?

SpaceX could replace them faster than Russia could take them out. That would be a war of launch capacity and cadence, and SpaceX outlaunches the rest of the world combined.

OTOH, child-rearing is incredibly context-dependent. Every child is different and judgment needs to be applied to determine what is appropriate. The government certainly doesn't have the same awareness of the child's situation and needs as the parent. The government could, in theory, pay child psychologists, to gather information about the child, perform interviews and analyses and produce a recommendation/strategy, but that would be prohibitively expensive.

(a) it's definitely not double the effort. I haven't looked at them, but they're guaranteed to have a lot of conceptual similarities.

(b) The differences are likely to be highly educational. Seeing how different engines approach similar problems will help him to understand the range of possibilities. Even better would be to learn something of the underlying theory and maybe build a (toy) engine himself to really understand.

If you're a software developer, have you learned only a single language? Do you think learning additional languages helped or hurt your ability to develop software? My own experience is that seeing a variety of approaches to a given problem has always made me better.

I think it makes perfect sense for a parent to help bypass age restrictions in this case... but I also think it makes a lot of sense to steer them to the open source tool.

Especially slashdot!

Only true in the English-speaking world. For some reason, governments that don't speak English can get things done.

The idiom is equally common in America, and I expect throughout the Western world. I know it's well-known in Spanish-speaking (obviously), and French-speaking countries. I don't know if it has spread to Asia or Russia.

The primary problem during the big freeze was natgas plants that weren't designed to operate in such cold conditions. 58% of the unplanned outages were from natgas. Wind generation also suffered, but the dip was smaller and the recovery faster. https://www.ferc.gov/news-even...

Bwahahahaha! If they actually had to rewrite the law it'd be great, because the process of rewriting the law is intentionally designed to have lots of checks.

But we've given up on that. At least, that's what the last few administrations have been trying to do, and the current one more than any... and Congress is sitting on its collective thumb and letting it happen, when it isn't actively collaborating. The courts are fighting a rearguard action, but they are too slow, because this was never supposed to be their job, and are often being opposed by the highest court.