Are you suggesting that German news sources don't have archives? It's amazing what we can do with computers these days. But, sure, it doesn't sound fair to ask you to look for a needle in a stack of needles, so I'll let that go.

Let's.

Funny, I found the text with little difficulty, and I speak like thirty words of German. From German Wikipedia:

Additionally, with regard to your "I did not say that" you said "your steam bullshit made me type wrong." You certainly placed the blame for your error upon me.

You have the cause and effect reversed. The cooling water in the reactor became supercritical and flashed to steam, causing the explosion. The graphite burned because it was already extremely hot and the explosion allowed oxygen to get to it, completing the fire triangle. I am old enough to remember 1986, too, and I would be interested in seeing your "1986 news source" that claims the graphite exploded, as solid graphite does not do that. Perhaps you are simply misremembering?

I respect that you originally wrote "hydrogen" in your previous comment and made a typographical error. However, there is no "steam bullshit" as this is the actual cause of the explosion. Additionally, "look at what you made me do" is something people who cannot accept responsibility for their own actions say when they're trying to blame other people for their errors.

They have like $80B in cash and cash equivalents. They can stick around for decades like AOL and Yahoo.

The graphite was not the material that provided the explosive force, the steam was. That's why it's called "a steam explosion." If you blow up a rockface with TNT, it's a "TNT explosion" and not "a rock explosion." This is not a difficult concept.

Damn, you just love getting shit wrong. They were hydrogen explosions.

Are Chinese workers equivalent to wrenches in your world view?

Those are, indeed, completely different things but only one of them happened at Chernobyl. The graphite didn't explode, the explosion was caused by steam. The reactor also melted down. you can see pictures of the rather famous "elephant foot" proving such.

And the number of false convictions (roughly 25% of those convicted in the US) doesn't cause a problem for you?

Then you're part of the problem.

Those three statements are policy choices, not objective facts. Capitalists like to present them as inevitable, but of course they are not; they are only presented as such because it's in capitalists' interest for people to see them that way.

Additional context: at the time of their release, both the Neo Geo and the 3DO were considered to be unaffordable, except by the very rich.

I don't think it's monopoly issues holding anyone back, so much as the fact that setting up a viable fab for RAM or storage takes billions of dollars and a number of years, and everyone is expecting the AI bubble to burst before then anyway.

e.g. why invest $$$ to build a new manufacturing facility, when by the time it comes online be competing with auctioned-off near-new equipment from all the belly-up data centers that didn't make it?

US: 66% (Wall Street's numbers aren't those found in official statistics)
UK: 28.9%
Holland: 23%
Norway: 16%
China: 6%

US' conclusion: The rate is a complete mystery, we've no idea how to decrease it, let's do more of what we're currently doing differently to everyone else.

There is a slight possibility this may be flawed.

The real problem with C is that it doesn't have any built-in support for strings. Everyone is forced to fake it with char-arrays, which aren't quite the same thing and require very careful handling. The problem with that is, everyone has their off days, and so everyone who does string-handling in C eventually ends up shipping string-related bugs that introduce security problems.

It has seemed to me, for a very long time, that modern AI systems would need to be integrated with standard RDBMS systems for reliable persistant storage of raw information, some sort of no-sql database (memcache or some variant) for persistant storage of associations, some sort of document database for blocks of textual information, a SPARQL system for searching semantically-marked information within the document database, and a more old-fashioned back-propogation NN to provide a store of understanding that the user can directly manipulate.

Probabalistic classifiers are all fine and good, but only for a subset of the tasks needed. The above structure is a very loose, wildly-speculative initial framework. It's almost certain that if you actually tried building an integrated multi-model system, that you'd end up making a lot of changes to this basic idea, but that you'd end up having to implement the same core concepts that are identified in it.

The British government, in a desperate bid to increase profitability, has trademarked Alan Turing himself.

How is ChatGPT supposed to know the difference? Both involve hands and mouths, so clearly it's the same context. :P