... went out of business too soon to profit from its technology.

Don't talk to anyone other than through your assigned (human) client. The way this was worded, it was asking for the AI to find a loophole in the rules.

On the other hand, I'd say AI has proven its worth as an attorney.

Who even needs to measure historical time that precisely? There's a principle in engineering and science called error probability. You account for it in your calculations and get over yourself about the last few CPU clock decimal places.

There is also the legal problem of measuring things too accurately. When did the Great Flood occur? Well, we have been living here "since time immemoriable" and the courts have judged our memories to trump your science.

It's the recprocal of the Street Light Effect. You don't look for where it is likely to be or where it's easiest to see (under the streetlight). You search where the rewards of sucess are likely to be the highest (citation for your research papers, Nobel prize in physics, etc.) Drunks search under the streetlight because the reward will always be the same. Found my car keys. Now I guess I'll (hic) be driving home.

You do realize where the WWW was created, right? Well, you probably do not.

Truth matters. That is not the truth. All you are doing by lauding somebody that made a good contribution beyond all reason is adding lies. That is not good.

So, no, here contributions were not "incredible". That requires a bit more.

Better programming means better programmers. We are currently going the other way with bad programmers being replaced by even worse slop.

It seems enough time has passed since the last catastrophic failures in this space that people do not remember. No, this does not work except in some very specific scenarios. What Meta is probably doing is get hardware done for their very special and very irrelevant elsewhere use-case. That does not even merit a story.

Thanks, I'll have a watch of that later.

The only difference between what you and I are doing and what the socialists seek is the decision making authority over asset allocation. They (socialists) presume the existence of some wise intellectuals with a perfect overview of the markets. We, on the other hand, rely on the wisdom of the crowd. Which time and time again has beaten the pundits' track records.

It's what they call a chaotic system. You have some positive and negative feedback loops. Which causes the system to oscillate around or settle on one of many possible points of stability (attractors).

Back when this paper was written, chaos theory was still in its infancy. So the author can be forgiven for using a better understood deterministic model.

Granted, a simplification of the formal definition. Some mathematicians will be here to mod me into oblivion shortly.

A good place to see that politicians are generally clueless and incapable or unwilling to see facts. I mean, I can run my own recursive DNS with no problems and the only thing I lose is some performance from caching. There is not even a reasonable possibility to block this in the network.

To calculate something and to do a calculation is _very_ different. The second part is maybe 10% of the job.

Sure. But if they get faked, it will come back to be counterproductive. Honesty matters.