I'm tempted to do a recompilation of an old MCC distribution, just to mess with people now. :P (MCC was the very very first Linux distro.)

I found a few that are more recent than the one I saw.

https://portlandpress.com/bioc...
https://royalsocietypublishing...
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729...

According to the researchers involved (I emailed them directly), the difference is due to retrotransponsons moving the genes into a different order rather than a simple mosaic effect.

But the non-coding regions do seem to be metadata used to interpret and regulate genes, and the interpretation of genes is impacted by placement (the brain has no two neurons with the same genome - a completely pointless mechanism that is expensive on energy and carries high risk unless there's an actual benefit from it).

As a result, we cannot assume mutations in the non-coding regions are "safe". The best I'd feel comfortable with is "the effects don't appear to be harmful so far, and there doesn't seem to be any immediate health impact". Those with a better understanding of generics are welcome to correct me on this, but I think it wisest to be conservative on both optimism and pessimism.

You are absolutely right, but I will continue to say "please" and "thank you" to AI bots, just on the off-chance one of them is actually a dalek pretending to be an AI.

When Admiral John Poyndexter originally proposed a stock market for violence, terrorism, and conflicts, as a means to "predict" them, absolutely everyone pointed out that you'd get the equivalent of insider trading by terrorists, warlords, and psychopaths. Which is precisely what we're seeing.

This is why, when I use AIs, I try to use 5 or 6 that operate in sufficiently distinct ways and are trained by different people with different data sets. If all of them agree, when instructed specifically to find defects, that something is valid/good, then I can be reasonably confident that this conclusion isn't a result of a specific defect in training or process but has some level of path-independence.

This does NOT mean that the conclusion actually is correct, it just means that a NN will likely reach the conclusion that it is regardless of any of the mechanisms involved.

I have developed 5 different engineering projects this way. None of them have actually been examined by a real engineer yet. I would love to have a real engineer look at them, precisely because this will give you detailed insights into what an AI system actually can do and what it can't.

You are absolutely right, and the likely response by said officials will be "oops, have a scandal to divert your attention".

And Ukraine is only a problem area because those same officials don't take anything seriously unless it impacts their promotion prospects.

*has terrifying flashbacks to the recentish Celestial Toymaker episode.

If that were meaningful, studies wouldn't show that hedge fund managers only make a profit around 1/3 of the time. If the people who actually work in the industry and know every aspect of it better than I know machine code or C still can't get anything useful out of their work 2/3rds of the time, then the theory simply isn't important.

A cargo plane can crash a maximum of once and can carry hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of packages. A drone carries one. Furthermore, a cargo plane will move from hub to hub, carrying cargo in each flight. A drone must go in both directions for that one package.

So whilst I technically agree with you, if an aircraft can carry N times as much as a drone, then the drone MUST be 2N times as reliable as an aircraft to be considered equal.

Ooooh, this should be interesting.

Trump, et al, don't consider proof to be all that important, all that matters is publicity, headlines, and transfer of more power to Trump personally.

The courts will likely take a very different view. Unless hard evidence (something Trump has never been able to supply in any court case, either instigated by him or against him), terrorism charges won't survive. But, of course, Trump isn't interested in winning cases like this, he's interested in playing victim and demanding more power.

True, but conditionally.

Remember the Firestone/Bridgestone tyre scandal, when the company got hauled into Senate hearings because SUVs kept rolling? Remember the Boeing scandal, when their aircraft would plunge out the sky? If a product is operated when known to be defective, your immunity in the case of accidents shrinks.

So it's going to depend on just how safe Amazon drones are. If they're normally safe and reliable, Amazon is safe. If, however, Amazon drones are well-known to lose control under normal and expected conditions, then the picture changes sharply.

As of now, we (the regular plebs) don't know which of those two cases it is. We should not second-guess in either direction, but rather acknowledge that it hinges entirely on what anyone finds out.

Amazon is working on the repairs?

If they can't fly a drone without turning it into a weapon of mass destruction, I'm not entirely convinced I'd feel safe with them a thousand miles of fresh bricks and just-mixed mortar. Always assuming that that's what was delivered. The robots go to a specific coordinate in a warehouse, not a specific product, and there's plenty of bogus stuff sold via Amazon stores.

If I were in that building, I would be very very scared to hear Amazon was repairing it.

The doubts will last for as long as the depression, during which the wealthy will be buying up bitcoin like mad. Once Bitcoin heads back into the 100k region, everyone will decide it IS digital gold, and push it up higher, at which point the wealthy will sell off, causing a collapse that the "everyone elsers" essentially pay for, and the cycle will continue.

And that is all bitcoin is. It's all the stock market is, too. A tool for pumping money from 401K plans and the gambling poor into the hands of the wealthy.