Do you mean 'creative'? As in using the rules in interesting ways...? Pure AI application. The prompt starts with, for instance, "how do...".

Accounting is a more rational and regulated industry than many. It's ripe for AI maximization.

On the one hand, humans are still much more adaptive, creative, flexible than programming or machines.

On the other hand, we may yet become a Philip K. Dick story.

> Once, the one time 5% is spent the state will have to figure out how to do the one time 5% more than once to keep feeding the spending machine.

The money to be raised is already budgeted as a separate fund for a specific purpose. It is not intended to be general funds nor is it intended to be ongoing funding.

Think of as a bond. When the government wants to raise money for a project or investment in the future, they will often issue and sell bonds to raise that money. Bonds mature and pay back with some interest, and are not recurring or factored into the normal budgeting.

This is functionally the same thing, except instead of borrowing via bonds and paying back with interest, it's just a straight up tax on billionaires.

=Smidge=

Hello, people get it w7 sometimes and other people have to figure it out.

*whoosh*

Data center use of power is very high, but water is often being overestimated. See https://theconversation.com/ai-has-a-hidden-water-cost-heres-how-to-calculate-yours-263252 for a good basic discussion of the issues involved.

Every neural net is a multi-dimensional model; there is nothing new about this, and the anthropomophizing of Claude doesn't mimic human consciousness. All computers behave like humans because humans invented them and interface with them; we humans are their root.

The data training of all LLMs has been human-based data. So if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's still a duck, and not a human.

The attempt to make AI appear human is also related to its legal status, and many are trying to goad public policy into recognizing AI agents, MPC and RPC, as humans for legal purposes. It's programmed date in matrices. Don't guild the lily, or in some cases, the turd.

Don't let them. It's both ethically, and morally incorrect to do so. Placing trust in AI is the same trust that corporations should have; which is none, as their vehicles designed to aid their investors, and *no one else*.

Also a separate reply to note a specific detail: > 12 and 21 You mean 15 and 21. There's no way Shor's algorithm would factor 12. It only factors odd numbers.

Find an independent EV specialist. They can probably get or build you an aftermarket LEAF pack with more modern guts.

There's a ton of aftermarket support out there.
=Smidge=

> Might be. But it is not far outside the window of actual expense

"Yeah the evidence is fake but that doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong."

That's basically politics in 2026 in a nutshell, I guess.
=Smidge=

What evidence? The only evidence you've provided was a vague wave about Shor's algorithm, which we're in agreement with. You haven't attempted to give anything else remotely resembling evidence, like a link, a citation, a source, anything here. And then after all the insults here and in the other thread where you and I discussed these issues you think the problem is me being an asshole? How hard is it rather than insult people to just give evidence that I and everyone else in this thread can actually look at, or for you to go back to the prior thread where we were having a conversation and continue that?

People are really quick to accuse things of being AI. I've lost track of how many times on Reddit I've written two or three paragraphs with citations and someone responds accusing it of being AI. Apparently the bar is very low, and seems even lower if one is arguing for something they disagree with. But I've also had this happen with short stories. I had someone claim a short story I wrote was AI generated when the story was from 2019 and thus predated any AI that could write more than a few sentences.

Aside from the early LEAF packs being notoriously bad with degradation - both due to early tech AND bad thermal design - it's also worth noting that the main reasons EV batteries enter the secondary market is because the vehicle they were installed in got totaled.

=Smidge=

I'm not sure why you think that. It wouldn't be surprising if Israel has access to Signal App chats, and other things. But you don't need quantum computers for that. The vast majority of penetrations of secure systems involve finding implementation bugs, or infecting machines thought to be secure, or social engineering, or given how the beeper operation went, possibly just compromising phones at their source before they even get to the targets. And we have good evidence that the governments have not yet built quantum computers on a scale that can decrypt anything substantial. There are two major lines of evidence.

First, while we've seen some government investment in quantum computing, we're seeing scientists and engineers there publish in the open. When they get really close, some of that will start getting classified. That's happened with a bunch of techs before. Georgy Flerov was able to detect that the US was working on an atomic bomb because all of the apparent public nuclear research stopped. Similarly, a sign in the 1970s to the US that the Soviets were *not* working on stealth aircraft was that the work on related ideas such as the work by Ufimstev and related work had not been classified https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev.

Second, the US and its allies have built giant data storage facilities and are still expanding those. The Utah Data Center is the obvious big example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center but other governments have built similar smaller facilities. This doesn't make much sense if one has quantum computers. But it makes a lot of sense if one is expecting to get quantum computers a few years from now since it lets one do the strategy of storing massive numbers of messages now for later decryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvest_now,_decrypt_later.

There is however one argument in your favor. If one looks at the history of declassified material from the NSA, material from GCHQ (the British analog of the NSA), and looks also at declassified Soviet material, anthe pattern seems to be that the classified version is generally 10 to 20 years ahead of the unclassified work on a bunch of things. (For the Soviet end, this stops being the case in the 1980s it seems, but I don't know how much of that is that the USSR is just falling apart and how much of this them failing to archive things well, or make their archives available, or failure to declassify things. Also, the Soviets were never quite as good at a lot of cryptography things. For example, while both NSA and GCHQ came up with a lot of ideas about public key cryptography before it was public, I'm not aware of any evidence the Soviets did.) So by that logic, if one thinks that quantum computers will be practically able to do some decryption within 15 years or so, then that's an argument that it should be plausible that the NSA can do it now.