Actually, no. Transporting 13 kT of explosives to Hiroshima by plane and dropping it there alone would have amounted to a lot of energy consumption compared to transporting a single 4 metric ton device. You would need 3000 planes instead of one. Imagine the energy required to build 3000 planes and fly them all at the same time to Hiroshima! And 13,000 metric tonnes of TNT aren't cheap either. The US did not even had to mine the uranium for the bomb. They got it from Germany in April 1945, when they raided a nuclear research facility in Central Germany.

Additionally, the nuclear energy content of U-235 has not to be put into the uranium. It sits there since the Uranium was created during that supernova, which created the space dust that formed our Solar system 4.6 billion years ago. For Antihydrogen, you have to actually provide any energy that is then confined in the antimatter. It is more or less an antimatter based battery which you have to charge first.

The energy you need to create a single antimatter bomb will be some magnitudes larger than the energy needed to bomb you into oblivion. No one said creating Antihydrogen was in any way efficient.

That's why you hire promoters. And if you can't figure out how to hire promoters, that's why you hire a manager.

The law doesn't just apply to cookies. It applies to any tracking if data that might be used to identify a person, even if the data itself is anonymized.

Bullshit. My claim was "Cookies are not even mentioned in the GDPR". That claim is accurate. And that is the regulation part.

Obviously, any judgments regarding concrete technologies will refer concrete technologies and comments on them. But these comments will be checked for validity by the court. Same for derived national laws. Recitals are nothing more than comments. They are NOT part of the regulation.

Oh, and: https://www.europarl.europa.eu...

Seriously, why can you assholes not admit when you are flat out wrong?

Keep some money for crapto and "AI"! Other scammers want to make money too...

In actual reality, it gets farther and farther away over time. At this time, a prediction of "maybe in 30 years" would already be overly charitable. QC effort clearly scales exponentially in the number of effective qbits and (!) the length of the computation.

Hence forget it. Physics may be done, but this is not a useful computation mechanism.

OS/2 was NOT vaporware. OS/2 was pretty good and far better than anything MS had at the time. But then some moronic decisions killed it.

... are still bullshit. At this time they are just truing to keep the reporting alive because it is utterly clear they will not deliver any computing hardware in the foreseeable future.

Was there ever a single case where the perpetrator was not caught? I doubt it.

My take is that you are just lying now.

And your point is? Yes, an LLM can to this. Insecurely, unreliably and not always. That is impressive as a research result. That is not what a practicably useful system looks like.

If you were part of that historical project, you apparently did not understand what real-world requirements for such a system are. May explain that failure if you were important enough.

Incidentally, I had my first Internet access almost 10 years before (via Sprynet, which was Compuserve, but gave you real Internet access). And yes, that was the Internet. It just had a smaller population and not many commercial presences.

I used to have many magazine subscriptions.

They would each mail me a reminder to renew my subscription.

If I sent them a check my subscription would continue. If I didn't send them a check my subscription would end.

I didn't have auto- anything. I didn't have to call to cancel.

The same went for when I was a paperboy. You pay for your week or you stop getting papers. When you remember to pay you start getting papers again.

I think this is how subscriptions have worked for hundreds of years, with auto-renew on a payment card developing in the past couple decades.

Without a contractual definition the corpus of caselaw would very likely date to throughout the history of the country.

No, because a surgeon can tell you WHY he washes his hands and point to the historical evidence for the practice. He won't say "God tells us to wash our hands".

Well, the hype and the false claims (including some instances of claiming "AGI" or this being the way to AGI, a claim that can only be called "deranged" or, if we want to be charitable "without any scientific merit at all") have made some people incredibly rich and that explains the lying and misdirection nicely. It is essentially a legal scam and tons of (not so smart) people are falling for it.

Other than the false claims, a system that can converse with a non-specialist person on a general topic (regardless of validity, completeness of the statements made or hallucinations) in understandable language is a pretty impressive step, I completely agree on that.