Problem is people aren't just querying. They're saying "generate a video of a cat riding a shark", which uses a LOT of inference and compute.

But then you would not have learned the value of a 10 second Google search before asking a question with an extremely easy to find answer.

a) I don't believe you. You're lying and there's nothing you can say that will change my mind. I live in Australia where I probably drive to a weekend dinner a distance that you call a "road trip". The number of people here who have done 800+km in a day is vanishingly small. 800km is NOT 8 hours. It'll be around 10 at a minimum even if you're on highway the whole time. There's pee stops. There's traffic and animal slow downs. There's leg stretching and snacking. The fact that you think 800km can be done in 8 hours in any setting other than a controlled speed run tells me that you've probably never driven long distance, ever.

b) If you drive 8 hours with your wife in the car without taking any rest stops, then you are both irresponsible adults. Which tracks with the rest of what you say here.

c) Because making car decisions based on something you do once or twice in your lifetime is stupid. Which tracks with the rest of what you're saying here.

d) Can't afford it? Then go on vacation closer. Driving 2% of the Earth's equatorial circumference because you want a vacay is not a fundamental right you spoiled brat. Get your highly educated kids to chip in for a better vehicle, seeing as you raised them so well.

I hurl insults because I feel it's completely justified. And given the string of factual inaccuracies throughout your post, I doubt you specifically raised kids to go into research fields to help the environment. If you had anywhere NEAR that level of prescience and foresight, you would not think along the lines of "I've earned the right to pollute for no good reason".

a) 800km in a day is beyond being a rare edge case. The % of the population that has ever done, or will ever do, 800km in a single day would be below 1%.
b) In 800km of driving, you will take more than 45 minutes worth of breaks anyway. You just need to use your brain a little and plan it to stop at a charging station. Although, if you're American, I do understand that brain use is quite the ask.
c) There are now EVs capable of going 800km in a single charge, if you truly are doing 800km in a day with any degree of regularity (which I highly doubt)
d) Even if you do wait a bit more, that small price is worth it for a planet we can live on, you childish, stupid, self-centered, short sighted sack of dumb horseshit.

That's why he said "That makes it usually cheaper to use a non-HEPA filter but a higher air throughput rate."

It's a tradeoff, like almost everything in life. Whether his "usually" is correct depends mostly on who wants to buy the system, and only they can tell.

Would a properly installed firewall stop someone from accessing this via the IP?

Seems to me that is what firewalls are supposed to do - stop random people from accessing IP addresses on your network.

From my minimal web search it appears to me that:
1) the Plaintiff, Global Plasma Solutions appears to make an inferior product and make ridiculous claims for it.
2) The defendant, media company Elsevier published a poor quality review that made ridiculous and unsupported claim about the quality of the review.

In other words, two a-holes fighting.

EVs are now a direct replacement for ALL consumer use cases. If you need to tow your shitty trailer home from London to Prague twice a week then bad luck. Charging stations are common enough now.

You miss the point completely. The technology is there and unstoppable. Cutting down one company doesn't destroy the technology. Killing Napster didn't kill the technology, it just spread it around, decentralized it, then there were thousands of sites to control, and they never did manage to do that, did they? Killing Flock will do exactly the same.

Killing Flock won't kill the concept or the capability and more than demolishing Napster stopped music copying. I bet within 5 years, this scanning will be common in most dashcams and phone apps will be available.

Lashing out in anger without having a plan or knowing your target is juvenile.

Technically you are allowed to lie to MOST cops.

But there is a law that makes it illegal (5 years punishment) to lie to certain federal officials, as you referenced.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

This definitely applies to the FBI (lots of cases) and I think it applies to Border agents, but I am not as sure about that. So yes, the border agents that questions him should be able to charge him for lying.

EXCEPT:
The border agents claimed he was not entitled to a lawyer because he was legally not in the US until after he passed customs. He repeatedly asked for one.

If the court holds this to be true (unlikely) than he could argue he was not in their jurisdiction when they questioned him.

If the court says it was not true, then the courts will state anything he said cannot be used as evidence after he asked for a lawyer, including any lies he stated.

If that was what happened, you would be correct. But it is NOT what happened.He did not just try to refuse a search. He also specifically asked for a lawyer. While inside the physical US.

The border patrol stated and said that legally he was not inside the US and therefore did not have the right to a lawyer. They denied him one.

Which means either:

1) (Stupid argument in response to their stupid claim) They are correct and he was not inside the USA so the they did not have jurisdiction which means they cannot charge him with a crime for anything he did. US codes do not apply.

2) (Real argument) They denied him a lawyer when he was asked for one during a search, which means it was an ILLEGAL search and he had the legal right to destroy the evidence as they had no legal right to get it.

This is the actual argument his lawyer is already making.

Eh? This is incorrect. Perhaps most fictional murders are premeditated, because that makes for a more interesting mystery to solve, but in real life, the vast majority murders are impulsive, spontaneous acts that happen during arguments, fights, or emotional outbursts (often with the help of alcohol and/or readily available weapons).

Whoops -- accidentally moderated it. Undoing...

These are all the reasons those of us who live in suburbs give when we're asked why we don't live in the downtown core of cities.