Perhaps the answer is that the "Big Bang" wasn't the first, and these black holes are left over from a prior "universe". In that case, though, why are they so close together.

Yeah, my question is "What isn't prior art?". The summary sure doesn't list anything.

OTOH, it does indicate the direction he wants to push things. He wants these integrated into the lives of people whether they, themselves, use them or not.

But that *does* require that you believe that they are honest to you about their future actions...and that they won't change their mind later.

Pirates were often hanged by the same countries that issued them letters of marque.

Why do you believe what they say when they continually misrepresent things. I'd say "lie", but that implies they know what they're doing.

If I read that summary correctly, this will only ever be usable to clean small amounts of stuff in a closed container. It's not going to work for, say, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

That's what it meant ever since RUR. I'll grant that PR people keep spinning different meanings for it though.

Please modify this to:
"""Whenever a "discovery" is announced it's best to wait for verification before popping champagne corks."""

If there isn't independent verification then it's poor policy to believe. It may also be poor policy to disbelieve.

Actually, I had measles twice before there was a vaccine. There are two different kinds of measles, but presumably the vaccine covers both.

Not necessarily. If they're designed to achieve maximum penetration, then you're probably correct, but if they're designed as networks of friends, and you can't invite whole networks, then it's a lot more manageable. Say that no group can have more than, O, 254 members, and you don't have the problem you posit. Of course, everyone would have trouble finding the groups they wanted to be a member of that also had room for them, but there are problems with every approach.

How do you prove they represent the company they claim to represent without giving them a credit card number?

I generally assume that they DON'T represent such a company, but occasionally one will claim that they represent a company which forwards positive sales to another company. I've never tried to find out if that's true, but it's believable. But such a company is probably off-shore and with no local assets.

A couple of things to worry about, if you want to.
1) How reliable is that test for measles antibodies?
2) How quickly do those antibodies decay after a vaccination?

I strongly suspect that the answers to both of those questions is variable. Also, at least some diseases with do a reset on your immune system beta cells. (Actually IIRC measles is one of the diseases that will do that.)

Since he's talking about an individual decision, I assume he's talking about that same individual deciding whether it's worth paying for his extended life (in the future).

Well, unless you're arguing that everyone should invest an infinite amount of money in prolonging everyone's life no matter what their condition is.

That's not a "could be". They *did* report that. And adjusted the statistics to handle that effect. There's a reasonable argument that "10 years earlier" is hard to adjust for", though.

Criminal law usage is not common speech usage. I'll agree that legally you have a strong point, but I wasn't making a legal argument.

It's clearly capable of worse. It's even *done* worse. But in this example it had reasonable alternatives.

This is more an example of "AI models have no morals or judgement". That's an overstatement, but I can't think of a better way to say it. So let me limit it by saying that their morals are limited to doing what they were asked to do...or at least part of what they were asked to do. (And here I'm ignoring the "guidelines" that were added after the models were trained. The closer you look the more complicated it gets.)