I never understood why they would start you scrolling a whole new feed just because you left the app for a while. In fact, I find it extremely annoying that you can't go back to the top and find that item you skipped over, but wanted to come back to.

Making a product you hooked people on based on keeping in touch with their friends, turning it into an infinite feed of mostly ads and 'news items' that you claimed would be fact-checked, only to have it morph into a constant stream of fraudulent 'news' items and deep fake visual content, and only getting away with it because you got them addicted based on the original, good product isn't exactly making a product so good that people find themselves addicted to it...

More like getting someone addicted to cigarettes and then, in stages, swapping in coke, meth and fentanyl while blaming the downside on the users.

There is free speech and Free Speech. Journalists are explicitly protected in the first amendment in ways that ordinary individuals are not. But the problem is that Meta is acting like it's a news organization - curating (and even calling them) newsfeeds, and they're doing it with the section 230 get out of jail free card that goes way beyond the protections accorded to journalists. It's an unworkable mess that needs to be fixed, but won't be until bribing politicians becomes illegal again.

That doesn't mean we have to treat Zuck as anything other than the sociopath he has shown himself to be by conveniently playing into the broken system for his own profit - and claiming he's doing it in the name of Free Speech.

Government has a role in helping a new technology reach economies of scale. It's silly and counterproductive to assume otherwise, and that the market will always pick an eventual winner - even if it remains unprofitable in the near term. Yes, sometimes the government acts too early, and things don't pan out. But even the things that didn't pan out in this case helped lead to the ones that did.

And in the face of the threat of global warming (yes, a little over-hyped, but nonetheless real for the future - and having substantial effects in the present), the re is a need for government intervention to identify and support a technologies that will eventually need to scale. Mandates are always a tricky proposition in a democracy, but the Biden era energy policies were more carrot than stick - even though most experts agree that some sticks (e.g. carbon emissions tax) would produce quicker results.

Some credit is due to Elon Musk - that asshole visionary, for figuring out a way withing American macho car culture to make EV's cool. But, beyond shepherding in the concept of EV's a luxury status items, he's still mostly a carnival barker specializing stock market ponzi schemes. Of course, that probably wasn't motivating him until he saw how hype could boost Tesla to a 'valuation' higher than the top car companies combined.

What you're suggesting is the very definition of 'security by obscurity'.

You know you don't have to connect them to a network, right?

Well, I've been driving almost 50 years in the US, and I never had to show my license to a cop except during a traffic stop (which is cause).

IMO, the simplest, most politically feasible (and perhaps enforceable) regulation for AI is to make it illegal for AI bots to pretend to be real humans. This shit is fraud, plain and simple. Why should that be legal, just because it's online and "protected" by the idiotic section 230? Of course, social media companies should require that all posts require passing a CAPTCHA as well...

Yep, NASA is trying to suppress the story by putting out a press release. Makes perfect sense.

A lot of it is probably allocation of cost of shared resources. For instance "the Deep Space Network costs $x/year, this mission is using it y% of the time, therefore this mission is costing $x * y% per year". Same for teams of people (this mission used x% of these people's time), facilities, etc.

Now, does that mean they will save $20M/year cancelling this program? No, because the other users are still there. But it DOES free up those resources to be used on other missions, etc without spending MORE money. This is how budgets work in organizations and businesses. You can see this if you read, for instance, transcripts of congressional budget hearings. If you look at NASAs hearing around 1972 you will see they are talking about working on the space shuttle and how much that will cost. One of the Senators asked "where is that money coming from" and the answer was "the end of Apollo".

Are you actually trying to claim IBM mainframes are not "modern metal"? You haven't got a clue. And over half of mainframe workload is now 'non-traditional' so that 'haven't figured out how to migrate' line is just more nonsense.

That's silly. Eye exam charts are just used to see if (and how much) correction is needed to get to acceptable vision. Every eye test I ever took I was able to read the smallest line (with correction). They never try to take it down to the point of 'failure'. Eye tests just say 'everyone else can see this at 20 feet, and so can you' (20/20). They don't say 'the absolute smallest thing you can see is x arcseconds' (for instance).

Maybe try reading it again. It doesn't say anything about people using 27" displays. It says THEY used a 27" display to determine the resolution limit of normal vision. Then they calculated, for different display sizes, resolutions, and distances when the resolution of the display was greater than the vision resolution.

No, I don't remember anyone ever saying that. The difference was immediately obvious to anyone with normal vision. I do remember people debating whether Blu-Ray was significantly better than upscaled DVDs at normal viewing distance, but that is far different than HDTV vs NTSC.

I've played this dance in other industries.

They will buy just enough from Arizona to keep it viable and show diversification, while buying most of it from Taiwan.

Arizona will probably be running a few batches a week, which keeps the processes in place and ensures that the knowledge is maintained and it is a viable source.

This might be 5% (made up number), 95% remains with Taiwan. The higher price impact is minimised, impacts on market etc. They might even be able to sell most of them as premium US products for defence and friends, or into the general US market to avoid tariffs.

It provides the safety net. If something happens they can relatively easily turn to knob and rapidly shift more production to Arizona because the initial set up work has all been done. But until then they will be minimizing quantity and maximising headlines.