The good old days were before that. Circa '92 was good. Reasonable etiquette, news groups for almost every interest you could care to name, decent people you could run into (a bunch of people I met on the 'net prior to '92 was the start of many trips over to the States, many of whom I'm still in touch with). After '92-93 was the Eternal September, and the net went to hell in a handbasket.

Birds are pretty smart, full stop. They're the only group that has a method of creating and using their own hooked tools (Caledonian Crow) other than humans.
They are excellent problem solvers overall. Given their size relative to comparative intellects (Crows are comparable in intellect to monkeys and gorillas), they're absolute marvels.

Bioware may well be a shadow of its former self, but at the end of the day, love or hate what they produced in their latter days, it's all people that worked every day to do their best to bring about what management and the employed script writers specified.
There are many posts about graphics being superb, but gameplay lacking. That's a decision by game designers, rather than all the team, many of who are lumbered with knowing it could be better but constrained to produce what the spec and story said.

I feel for the team, each of who would be trying to make a living, and hope that some of the other studios may be able to wrangle increasing head count to absorb some of the EA fallout. Or that some kickstarter will be set up by the now unemployed members to rebuild some of what the old Bioware (and others) were once known for.

Good luck out there, ex EA employees. We'll be cheering you on for a path back to stability!

Linux and ARM would disagree. Probably loads more too.

I can understand all that, but it still doesn't say why acting deserves special treatment.

Coders enjoy coding. AI has taken a chunk out of that, and people treat it as beneficial. It's taken a lot of translators out of the picture. They enjoy what they do. It's taken a slice out of countless jobs that people enjoy doing, and there's been a bit of a murmur about job losses.

Then we get to acting, with a famous actor being deep faked into a movie with the consent of his estate, and everyone is up in arms because actor and celebrity.

The sad bit is yes, this obsoletes many aspects of human engagement, just as the industrial revolution rendered a lot of manual work. It will continue to do it. The question is how we as a species adapt to it, and utilise it to our benefit.

It's not just a child. It's a child plus a network of organised crime that specialises in tooling for illicit compromise, which said child has access to, plus contacts with compromise experience to learn from. This changes things significantly.

Cybersecurity is a hellishly expensive thing if done to the degree that's found in financials and the like (where a bad compromise could have serious international ramifications).
Most places don't have the budget to hire enough of the right staff to protect against a dedicated attacker with up to date compromise tools. It only takes one flaw for things to start going very wrong indeed.

It's a case of "Taking security as seriously as you can afford to" as an operational expense, and keep insurance up to date for if you're ever compromised.

Yep, there's a very good reason that engineers poke and prod at things for years before marking something as safe for a life critical area.

A little bit of friction can sometimes be a good thing. At the moment the mentality is to rely on AI as if it was a panacea for everything, and jobs are being lost that shouldn't have gone (there was a /. article about one instance not long ago).
Change is an inevitable, but well managed change takes longer and makes fewer disasters along the way; that's what the Unions are aiming for. Their power in the UK is significant, but not overwhelming enough to stop the march of progress.

There are plenty of AIs that can give medical advice, with the proviso that they're giving that advice to a medical professional, and in a very narrow field for which they're trained (e.g. medical imaging to identify artefacts on images that are of interest, or in planning to contour radiation dose delivery etc.).

There are no generalised AIs out there that offer General Practitioner level medical advice that I'm aware of though, and certainly not licensed to do so (which was what I suspect you were getting at).

It's a hard answer. By stating "You will categorically not be paid if you try to ransom us", you're cutting out the part of organised crime that does stuff for a profit. There will be no profit in attacking a hospital. They will not pay, and you'll take an awful lot of heat for no return (and potentially be liable for any deaths that occur if they eventually catch you, increasing the sentence that's meted out to you).

However, there is still the vulnerability to politically motivated attacks, so safety still isn't assured, it just demotivates regular organised crime that just wants to make lots of money.

Having backups, and having tested backups is pretty much what everyone has.
The critical thing that people are finding is the metric to follow with Ransomware attacks is the Recovery Time for the entire estate. Not one system, but potentially hundreds of interlinked systems that all fail catastrophically at once.
That can take weeks of forensics to work out what's happened (and needs to be done before you can make an effective recovery, otherwise you may find you're back at still being compromised and ransom attacked within minutes of being back online). Then it can take weeks or months to recover and sync all the systems affected.

All the while, your primary business (in hospitals, for example, keeping people alive) is in measures that most likely can't handle the load long term with paper based recording and tracking. They certainly will have difficulty managing planned appointments and making new ones, which is why many business continuity plans have a time scale by which a given system needs to be recovered, or else things go south quickly after that period.

I've read so many people saying "should have had backups", but nobody has considered the time to rebuild from catastrophic failure. Every system and server is down, full restore and recovery to a time before infection (and validation of that).
The company was a transport company with 500 trucks on the road. That's a lot of logistics in play that need to have continuity, each one with cost of probably tens of thousands a day, or more, with heavy non-complete penalties for failure.
Full catastrophic failure can take weeks, or months to perform. In this time, you've haemorrhaged customers, who have had to try and make alternate arrangements where they can (and will likely not be back), no ability to schedule new business, and bills that still need to be paid.

The cash flow can easily drive a low margin business like transport into failure just by the time to recover from a complete loss of function by malicious infection. All the backups may be there, they may even have off site, and have done everything by the book, just the operating company as an entity could easily lose more in the recovery time window than it was possible to financially recover from.

For a long time now, that kind of money has been mainly bandied about in the Sports leagues. Expensive players getting huge signing bonuses to join new teams..
I always wondered what it would take to get that kind of money for the scientists; looks like there's finally something that people really want to spend their cash on.
IT may only be for a short time (after all, anologously to sport, there is likely to be a short window of opportunity for this kind of cash, so you may find it's a short career, but if you invest well, it can last you a lifetime to do what you want afterwards), but it's good to see.

I suspect it's also a sign that the big players also see it as a limited time deal, with AI starting to tail off and stabilise as a tool in the not too distant future (5, maybe 10 years if that), and the disruption settling down into a newer way of operating. They're just going all out at the moment to get the best talent to be in the big player stakes when that happens (if it does; there's still no guarantee, but it's an interesting gamble).

It's the planning, and designing the equipment to let the jump happen.
Without the jump, all that wouldn't have happened (for a while at least).
Him stepping up, and actually doing it, advanced knowledge and engineering, proving that it could be done. Not a huge advance, but definitely a tiptoe in a new direction.

So, you would have the young vote against their own interests to help the aged (who really do need help) as well?
Everyone votes with what they believe will work best both for themselves and for everyone. Believing that just because someone votes other than the way you think they ought to shows that you have a massive bias. I've literally voted for every major party in the UK, all based on manifestos of what they say they're going to attempt to do, on the basis that I think that manifesto makes the most sense for the state of the country at the time.

Honestly don't care if there's been a GenX president, as I'm not from the USA. I'm fairly sure there will be at some point.