Unrelated, irrelevant question. EU already buys plenty of Chinese products/parts/materials. This issue is not about stopping all trade with China.

If you primarily care about zero emissions, buy inexpensive Chinese EVs. Then, in parallel, figure out how to create a competitive domestic offering.

According to chatgpt, the difference is in whether or not the suggesting party gets paid for it. It also equates suggestion with recommendation. In short, according to OpenAI ChatGPT, unpaid ads are suggestions, a.k.a. recommendations. I presume it only applies to direct payment.

If I'm a customer and I choose to give my data to someone, why would that be illegal? The data what carrier I am using and how much I'm paying should be mine to give to whomever I wish. Aren't customers already giving up their personal data almost every time they choose some free app or service? If someone writes a bot which can extract the data of interest from my account, or to perform all the necessary clicks to switch providers, why should the law ban me from using it on my own account?

I get why AT&T is pissed, but I don't think T-Mobile should lay down to their poor legal arguments.

Enter your credentials in the hotel, then just call to cancel your subscription when checking out. When they ask why, tell them.

I can see this already. MSRP $199.99. PRICE SET BY AI BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA - $179.99. Please choose which you'd like to pay. Same will go out with coupons - "Free Delivery For You, COUPON ISSUED BY AI BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA", no obligation to use the coupon of course.

Which degree matters when determining its worth. It's like asking people whether or not paying for meal is worth it? Which meal at what price?

If we assume this is the average of all degrees out there, then we can conclude that the mean perceived worth of a degree has dropped. It's not surprising considering the costs of tuition have skyrocketed many times the inflation rate, while the degrees have gotten diluted with bullshit required courses meant to support ideological causes and keep people with vaguely defined skills employed (as professors). Compassionate grading, a leftover from COVID era, doesn't help either.

What do you think happens when they upgrade the firmware at the service facility? Do you think they have test pilots with parachutes and chase planes following take it up to test it over some range where if they were to ditch the plane it would not hurt anyone?

As for a difference between cars and airliner, well, OTA being applied to Teslas for example will update maybe 100K cars in one night, perhaps as may a million (if not first deployment wave), so I guess a lot more car passengers are exposed to its maiden post-update voyage than if they upgraded 100 airliners at the same time?

That is precisely my point. Majority of EV buyers do not buy them because they are environmentally friendly, they buy they because they find that car desirable. If it wasn't for Tesla, the only BEV cars you would see would be publicity stunts by celebrities, cars relegated to publicity events, stuck in a garage all other times while the celebrity is riding around in a Ferrari. Maybe some die hard environmentalists, but I suspect also just for show (as the EVs before Tesla were not just undesirable, they were impractical)

Car being good for the environment is not a good enough reason for majority of people to buy it. Make it desirable, and people buy it. Model Y is not the world's most sold new car because it's an EV. Now, how do we make clean energy desirable?

Not saying it is easy, because it really is not (despite how easy it looks when your PC, or your phone, or you Tesla performs an over-the-air update), but it might become a real selling point to allow a remote technician to over-the-air update (or downgrade) planes firmware. Sure, there will be exceptions where this will not apply, but it would save their customers money (or does Airbus pay for all those repositioning flight and lost revenue?). There ought be a way to design a process to do this safely without having the place at the service facility (with worse case recovery being having to fly a crew to the remote place to fix a botched OTA - but it should be very rare).

Google docs suite doesn't support embedding objects in the single file document, at best you can insert a link which cannot be versioned together with the document. If I check-in a PowerPoint document with Visio diagram, that version is saved, no matter when you recall it. If I have version of Google slides presentation with some link to draw.io, it's never a fixed thing.6 months later I grab that same google deck version and it's old slides with new diagrams. Sure I can screen cap draw.io and insert it into the google slide deck, but then editing it is a royal pain in the ass. Then there are some quirks like on a Mac, Google docs will disable the mouse right click menus whenever on a screen that is shared via Teams.

Ha ha, Paris Accord. Guess how much France, the country which lead said accord, was fined for not meeting their own commitments? Spoiler alert, it's €1. https://earth.org/court-finds-... The accord is not worth the paper it's written on, or the non-volatile storage it's saved on, if it has absolutely no teeth. Imagine if speeding fines were capped at $1 fine per year for all your speeding tickets. How meaningful would the speed limit signs be?

Welcome do democracy, where decisions reflect the majority positions. Technically there is a second tier of voting, with money, people could simply reject buying dirty energy, so if it's close to 50:50 split, you can still have a significant secondary effect. However, as you said, everyone is all for clean energy or using less energy, as long as it doesn't cost them more, or make them less comfortable. Heck, I somehow doubt even the minister who quit would choose to live in an unheated home (it is possible to live in one) or choose to walk or take a bicycle everywhere to save the environment. Often people like that are for clean energy because they can afford it, as can all their immediate friends and family. They assume most citizens are just like them and their friends, often incorrectly.

Most humans are wired to their immediate needs, and not to sacrifice their own livelihoods to save future generations. Notice for example how electric cars didn't take off until someone made them desirable as a car, not as an environmental cause. We need someone to make clean energy sexy, desirable. I don't know what that would take, perhaps ability to be independent from the grid?

Governments don't want their people to be able to fact check - it would make them look stupid and would be way to hard to govern profitably (for the involved people in the government). Heck, GOP in Texas at one point was (might still be) officially against teaching critical thinking in schools because it "causes young people to question authority". Not that the Democrats are any better, just a different messages they don't want fact checked.

I find it interesting the official statement specifically refers to Gemini AI model, leaving the possibility for training a different models without contradicting their statement. Those models in turn could be referenced by Gemini, or heck, those models could be used to train Gemini, but the official statement will technically still be true - emails not used for training Gemini AI model (directly).