I am old enough to remember how we found things on the Internet before search engines. If your gatekeeper is some one else's index or algorithm, you are going to get a load of crap even before AI. We used to rely on individual recommendations and human-curated lists like webrings. Those options still exist, and the net will route around the damage of AI.

That still makes me angry, since it shows that asking you to 'spend thousands on a seat replacement' was also a scam since they can afford to sell the base trim cars with the same seats.

Why would they be, anyone who wants to use it just installs it.

I don't see what Chinese notions of culture and duty have to do with this story, theft of trade secrets is a universal phenomenon.

Yes, this is what happens in the vast majority of cases.

it is just more proof that using "AI" makes people stupid.

I'd like to hear what specific things in Doctorow's proposals constitute intellectual property theft. He's not talking about copying anything, he is talking about reverse engineering and creating alternative interoperable products.

I know a lot of mountain bikers upset about this, I'm not sure that is warranted. First, I understand the insurance requirement only applies to type 1 vehicles with a throttle, meaning you don't have to pedal them to move, and it only applies to vehicles operated 'on the highways of this State' so off road trails would be out of scope. But I am not a lawyer. https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/...

This is the same phenomenon that made guidance on spotting fake IDs into a manual on making fake IDs, books about burglar-proofing your house into burglary tutorials, and so on.

America already has a full plate of sexier and higher trending disasters we are slow walking into, this clam bake can go straight to the end of the line.

Probably just another scam, someone cobbled together a do-nothing but looks plausible device and sold it to the Pentagon.

This is nitpicking, but the sentence does not claim that it was 'determined' as you stated. It doesn't posit a connection, just states two properties 1. the device was tested and 2. it may be linked to Havana syndrome.

I heard much of this 2 years ago on an episode of the Science Vs. podcast.

I am dubious the cost of regulating and prosecuting activity of this nature is worth the cost. Once it is well known that insiders game the system, why not just let buyers beware? Or how about a compromise, add a required disclaimer that the betting platform could be manipulated by bettors with non-public information.

Some might argue that a list of 8 like this is too long for a summary. Surely if it were a list of 100 extensions you would agree that the list does not belong in the summary. One can always RTFA