Because that I would do.

Isn't there a rule about the government not delaying economic impacting information to the general public?

That is, isn't this illegal? Or is it just that no other presidency thought of doing this particular cash grab?

Just wondering if TSMC is doing this because they think it makes financial sense (capitalism) or because a certain republican made an offer they can't refuse? (dictatorship)

You make a lot of good points.
.
However, two environmental disasters creating an increase may indicate an underlying cause. Many environmental scientists claim that both more fires and more frost are a result of climate change that is itself a trend that will continue.

Adjustments for population growth is also an underlying cause, not something we should ignore.

The idea that it is a couple of local problems rather than a national one has significant importance. Texas in particular, being a separate power grid, may have issues that the rest of the country does not.

This is one of those things that people do not have a frame of reference for.

The question is not did we have a power outage every month, but did we have MORE power outages these past 6 months than we had last year during the same 6 months. Without that data, we have curiosity and mindless fear, nothing more.

Here is the actual data the industry uses, from 2014 to 2024.: https://www.eia.gov/electricit...

While these numbers are hard to inteerupt without a graph (particularly because 2024 was a 'bad' year), there are some clear trends:

Non-major events is pretty much unchanged.
Major events have gone up significantly - perhaps even doubled.
Durations of events have also gone up.
Finally, losses due to power plant failures ('supply removed') rather than transmission line events has a slight upward trend.

The cuecat was a freebie.

If they gave this $230 thing away for free, I would take one.

I can easily see a day where every bit of software is subjected to an AI check before it is released.

There may come a day when hacking is far more rare and requires government level resources to pay for an AI better than the one software makers use.

There will always be vulnerabilities but they might only be visible to government spies.

It is designed under the assumption that AI works better than it does without any need for verification.

Screens are cheap, put one in just to list what prompt the AI heard, you idiots.

Smart homes are dying because they were stupid BEFORE AI came about. No one is willing to let an AI control their temperature, let alone the lighting, doors, etc.

What is going on is people are trying to create products for a Science Fiction version of AI, when what we have is closer to a Horror movie version of AI.

Of the listed factors (lack of child care, early retirement, incarceration and substance addiction) the only one we can easily handle is the lack of child care.

Child care is ridiculously expensive, in part because of insurance and regulations. Many state regulations limit it to no more than 4 or 5 children per worker, which makes the labor expensive even though we underpay them ($12/hour is common). $12/4 kids = each parent paying $3/hour just for the labor, not including rent, supplies, and of course, insurance. Insurance is high because of the high value we place on the children.

So the solution is to have either local governments or large businesses supply the child care. In those cases, they can self-insure.

Everyone my age knows what the stereotypical 'robotic' voice is. They changed it because they wanted to hide the fact you were talking to a machine.

We all know that a mouse moving in a perfectly straight line means a machine is controlling it, while humans do something more like a squiggly line. Basically a normal human drawing a line looks like someone with Parkinsons did it as compared to what a machine drawing a line looks like.

Similarly, humans typing have pauses that tend to end after set thoughts. New sentence = a pause. If I am seeing a long unbroken, steady text output or text that all appears in full sentences quickly, I know it is a machine.

For the best hybrids, the major advantage is not the regenerative braking. While that helps save some energy, it is relatively minor.

Instead the main advantage is that you can design the internal combustion engine (ICE) to run at a consistent RPM. You do not need to run the ICE at different speeds to get 30 mph, 45 mph and 60 mph. Instead you have one that just runs at a set RPM. Then you use the hybrid battery to supply all the power at low speeds and a boost at the max speeds.

The more efficient ICE can add 10 more mpg to an engine alone, without even considering the regenerative braking.

You have no idea what the article is saying or what is real. here is an unbiased summary of reality.

No state 'dislikes' billionaires, they all want them.
All states have various taxes.
A bunch of conservatives claim California hates billionaries, because they tax them more than certain red states do.
Some conservatives think a proposed one time tax law in California will drive away billionaires.
The actual facts are that billionaires do MORE business in California than they do in ANY other state. After it is New York City.
California has not changed anything about themselves, they continue to do the same thing they always did.

This article is implying that the conservatives are wrong about the relationship between California and Billionaires, as demonstrated by these facts. But of course, the conservatives that hate California also do not respect the Los Angeles Times.

If a person makes an offer and accept the money, that is a non-verbal contract for services. Certain states have laws that prevent businesses from cancelling orders without just cause.
In those cases, it may very well be illegal for a company to cancel an order because an AI that was authorized to set prices did not follow the company's intentions.

The real problem is that the companies are going to try and refuse the responsibility for the AI actions.

As in:

Yes my AI was empowered to set prices, but we did not want it to set a price less than a $1000 and it set a price of 10 cents. No we do not want to give up all other transactions the AI approved.

Yes the AI hired only christian white woman and illegally asked if they had children, but we did not mean to break the law. That was the LLM, not our fault.

Yes the AI illegally rejected every rental applicant that was single but we did not mean to violate the Fair Housing Law. We never told it to do that, it is just the algorithm.

You can't sue us if we did not intend to break the law.

No. They can definitely sue you for unintenionally breaking the law.

It's only cheaper if you do not get sued for slandering an innocent person that your camera falsely reported tot he police.

Basically, what is going on here is companies shifting risk from themselves to their customers.

Does that sound to you like a good idea? To be so afraid of your customers stealing that you treat them with massive disrespect?