Let me quote them : "because they're a cable network"
within a context of a specific reply about a segment from Fox News called "The View", furthermore talking about newscasting.

Let me guess, you're the kind of person who when a woman drags you into the bedroom and starts undressing in front of you while looking at her seductively says "I'm not really sure what she wants from me" right?

You'd be surprised how trivial those "layers" are to overstep for a really determined hacker.

Given how little revenue MS derives from Windows in a consumer world, and how there's zero move away from Windows in the corporate world the market is right to ignore your fantasy scenario.

There is a story about how dealer plates have small numbers on them that Flock cameras do not see. The system then accuses people of car theft.

They are proven as not reliable. If I were a judge I would rule that the police must treat Flock camera information as an unreliable, anonymous source. No drawing guns on people tracked or accused because of Flock information and their info cannot be used to obtain a warrant.

The end user always pays for things they use.

Renting is a perfectly legitimate way to obtain the use of something, whether it's a house, a car, or a server. Sure, you might be a higher rate per month than if you buy, but you also don't have to pay to maintain the thing you're renting. That's the owner's job.

Renting is a tradeoff. Buying is a tradeoff. As a homeowner, I can tell you that buying isn't for the faint of heart. You don't pay monthly rent, but you DO pay big air conditioner replacement costs. Hardware infrastructure is no different. You pay for it one way or the other.

When we entered the Atomic age, there was a movement to use it for everything. Use reactors in cars and homes, use bombs to dig holes, etc. etc. Eventually we learned that no, we do not to put a nuclear reactor in vehicles that routinely crash, get stolen by children, and carry children.

The same thing is going on with AI - people keep using it for things that are incredibly stupid.

AI's are more like friendly dogs that can speak English, than adult human beings. I suspect they will never be as trustworthy as a 17 year old orphan. If you would not give authority or control to a 17 year old orphan you just met, then do not give it to an AI.

This includes:

control over more money than you would give a 17 year old.

the ability to delete computer files

the ability to set prices

guns

any military weapon more deadly than a hand gun.

If you can convince a person to mistake you for someone who has the right or authority to receive sensitive information, they'll give it to you. This is literally how phishing works.

Xi can't subsidize everything.

[Citation Needed].

A neural network that has been trained to go from a chemical formula to a synthesis process can do this. If it hasn't been trained, it cannot.

GCC is largely complete. Moving quickly is not an important requirement, but maintaining stability IS an important requirement.

What project is that?

Some things are impossible, but this one is easy to solve. If you don't want an LLM to explain how to synthesize cocaine or sabotage a commercial aircraft navigation system, DON'T PUT THAT IN THE TRAINING DATA.