Optimizing means making the code better. All the programmers I've talked to have told me that you can generate code, more code than you could ever know what to do with, mountains of code in fact, whatever color of mountain you want - but it's never going to be good code.

Some might tell me they are just in denial about their replacement, but what they're saying sounds totally believable to me, based on the interactions I've had with AI.

Not all financial professionals agree bitcoin belongs in a portfolio. Bitcoin differs from stocks, bonds and real estate because it doesn't generate earnings, interest payments or rental income that investors can use to estimate its value, says Robert Johnson, a finance professor at Creighton University. Instead, its price is largely determined solely by investor demand. "You cannot invest in Bitcoin, you can only speculate," he says.

The best comparison to Bitcoin that I've heard is the game of roulette. No one wins a dollar from a roulette game that wasn't lost by another player, with the house (the miners) taking its cut for runnng the wheel. Bitcoin is just one giant game of roulette. The money passes from one player to another. If you get rich, it's only because other people walk away from the game poorer.

And of course, more roulette games can be started by other casinos at any time, just as anyone can create a new cryptocurrency. Some of those games gain their own audience; other die out for lack of players. The parallel to cryptocurrency is exact.

But at some point, people have to realize that sitting at a roulette table isn't investing - it's gambling. You're hoping that you'll be luckier than the other players, and that more suckers will keep walking up to play. And fundamentally, I think that's part of what's happening to Bitcoin - with so many cryptocurrencies out there, it's finally percolating into the public consciousness that Bitcoin isn't money, and it isn't an investment - it's just gambling, except that it isn't as honest as a roulette table at Vegas. The Bitcoin whales manipulate the market to fleece the suckers, and will keep doing it as long as more suckers show up.

True, except that gold's actual usage price -- for industry and jewelry -- hasn't been its trading price for a very long time. As long as people have viewed it as a store of wealth its price has been inflated by that perception.

I see it as the DoE was the most pliant bureau at this point in time. Harder to get the other ones to agree to this nonsense. Once the idea of submitting all your data directly to the government at end-of-day becomes normalized, then will come the mandates, and then restrictions on what you can study.

Wait, you thought this was about promoting science?

That's not a problem for them, it's the point. Thought-shaping and direct visibility into anyone trying to research anything. Not long until it becomes mandatory.

I figured the WoW backend would be way too complicated for a small team to make any kind of clone. I guess not.

Emacs came with AI long before any other editor (Eliza).

Predictions of the future are meaningless when applied to the present.

It will be interesting to compare his reception there to Ed Snowden's. I'm assuming it will involve luxury accommodation with a marina and an airfield, not sleeping on an airport bench for 3 years.

OK, well you're alone in that, because every software company has telemetrics of some sort or another to take advantage of the many eyes (users) and getting reports from them.

Why do people still use Oracle Java?

What is practically useless are all the airplanes in the air at any one time, most of which burn more fuel in one flight than it takes to heat a 200 homes for an entire winter. We need electric aircraft - badly.

But electric aircraft are impractical from many aspects. You see, unlike a car whose engine is basically idling most of the time an aircraft engine is working hard. A car engine may generate 200+hp on 1.5L displacement, but an aircraft engine can get 160hp... from 5L. But the aircraft engine will be developing 80-100hp just flying through the air, while the car engine is likely only doing 10hp to maintain speed on the highway.

Car engines have been repurposed - but are severely de-rated.

The end result is the car engine spends a lot of time doing nothing and running inefficiently, which leaves open possibilities like hybrid drivetrains where you can run the engine more efficiently and use the excess to charge a battery for later use.

Hybrid engines have been tried for airplanes, and they aren't very successful because there aren't many opportunities to generate electricity.

Electric aircraft are a reality for short (20 min) flights or training, but it's not likely to be beyond it.

What part of people don't give a shit as long as their water and power are not affected is unclear to you? That's it. Data centers in small towns will always affect the local infrastructure. In decades past, datacenters had to build all the infrastructure they needed. And the locals didn't give a shit as long as they did that. What is happening now is the rush to build new datacenters wants to skip over the infrastructure problems.

Until recently, datacenters were located near urban areas - the power, water and more importantly, data connectivity required it.

The ONLY reason they're going after small towns is cheap land. But small towns rarely have big city infrastructure - the power and water are sized for the expected growth - a data center can easily consume double or more than what the town does and overwhelm the local utilities. And other times, it's simply beyond what the resources have available - aquifers only replenish so fast.

And in other places, it's water rights being bought up for data centers - but it also means excess use costs a lot more.

You are suggesting quite a few things, except you don't like to actually say directly what it is that you want to happen. Here is one thing you said: "Elon Musk should be a wealthy man, no doubt about it but a trillionaire or hell even a $100B is a failure of our economy, our culture, our society or our politics." - 100B is not Musk anymore, it's more than Musk, who I consider to be a con artist.

What you are implying to calling 100B owner a failure of economy and culture and society and politics is that it should be impossible for some reason for a person to accrue enough ownership of private resources to be at that level. It is your inadequacies that are showing here and it is your word play that we are debating. What you are suggesting is oppression and tyranny, nothing less, which is what is required for a person not to be able to accrue any amount of wealth regardless of how it is obtained.

How about this: "I mean, he does. He also still is one person with 24 hours a day, does he actually provide enough productivity to justify tens of millions every day?" - nobody has to justify anything, if they are able to accrue some wealth beyond your imagination does not make it wrong that a person should be able to do so.

To this I have already answered: "Explain this (i am fully anticipating Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook)" - obviously a large amount of accumulated wealth is represented by a business and this business clearly benefits the society much more than the individual who runs it, otherwise the company wouldn't be valuable enough for you to pay attention how wealthy the owner of this company becomes.

This: "Everything you said would equally apply if he was worth $1B as it does $1000B so what does he need the extra 999B? His lifestyle changes 0%. He can still own and run companies." - implies that a person shouldn't be able to have ownership in a company that is growing in value, Musk or anyone else. So if you build a company that becomes so valuable people invest into it enough that its market share, its profits are so large that the value exceeds 100B (on paper, doesn't matter). If you are the single largest owner of the stock in this company your shares go above and beyond 1B.

You are pretending that you are not suggesting confiscation (oppression by the voting majority) yet what else are you suggesting? Be clear, what are your demands and goals? I already see the reasons, jealousy and ideology with a strange belief that a person shouldn't be able to own something of serious value for some reason.

This: "And I would ask just the same what the unhealthy fixation on defending the massive wealth inequality?" - I am FOR wealth inequality, it's the only thing that actually motivates people to move forward with business ideas in the first place. If wealth equality was the goal, nobody would be ruining their lives trying to run a business.

This: " I'll guess if I ask for the alternative you'll point to "communism" and I will just say you are not a serious person with a serious position. Like I said, Randian nonsense." - you are the one bringing up communism and Randian ideas, whatever, you are fixated on the nomenclature.

This: "You say you want to "protect private property" as if what I am suggesting eliminates private property in any fashion." - of course you are. You are suggesting this exact thing, you wouldn't be happy until there wouldn't be "wealth inequality". This requires that people cannot own things cannot operate things as they see fit, cannot go beyond some artificial number that is stuck in your head. You think 1B is plenty and 100B is too much, whatever that is all about. In reality it's all garbage. A person who made a billion dollar company can use the money that he makes to start more companies and eventually go much further than 1B dollars and this bugs the shit out of you because you are on a mission.

Coming soon: Attorney-generals, the best of both worlds. Court not cooperating with seizing your property? He'll send in an armored tank division.

I think there are a few already decorated, judging by the commercials.