Not nearly as irritating as having dozens of random dot subdirectories in the root of your home directory.

The first issue costs a few developers a few days of their time to fix. The second is a problem that nags millions of users for eternity.

Sorry, I didn't get that quite correct, they're Passive Autocatalytic Recombiners. They require no external power.

"Don't worry Dave, just press CTRL-V in the password box"

Yes, Google is profitable now. Tremendously so. But they're at risk of losing revenue and ceasing to be profitable as people cease using Google search and switch to asking questions of their AIs. So to retain their position as the place people go first for information, they have to stay ahead of the AI race. Well, they could also just sit back and wait to see if their competitors are overwhelmed by the query volume, but that risks losing traffic and then having to win it back. It's much better to keep it. And Google is better-positioned to win this race than its competitors both because of its existing infrastructure and expertise and because it already has the eyeballs.

In addition, you seem to be assuming that doubling serving capacity means doubling cost. Clearly Google is not planning to increase their annual operating expenses by 1000X. As the summary actually says in the third paragraph, Google is also going to have to improve efficiency to achieve the growth rate, with better models and better hardware. This is what the AI chief is challenging the employees to do; he's not challenging them to write bigger OPEX checks, that's his job.

Because at this rate, by my math, the number of AI cores Google requires will exceed the number of atoms in the visible universe within about 120 years.

It wasn't just the generators or sea wall. Another one of the problems is that they never installed the hydrogen reformers designed to burn off the hydrogen buildup from an overheating core safely.

As recommended by the reactor manufacturer and installed on US plants.

There would have been a lot less boom with them installed.

> And that means you vote for politicians who'll do it. If you're American that means a Democrat.

You mean, like the Microsoft anti-trust case which was filed in 2001 when both President and House were Republicans and the Senate was 50:50?

Has there been any anti-trust case against big business since then? Maybe the Democrats did something but I can't remember anything like that offhand.

At this point, expecting elections to do anything just makes you look incredibly naive. It's clear that the only thing the vast majority of populations care about is grift.

> The thing is, there's money to be made in AI, LOTS of money

Sure, just about everyone is losing money pushing "AI", but they'll make it up on volume.

I know a few. I don't know what it may or may not mean. It may be relevant that the ones I know used a community-based approach, where groups of homeschooling families worked together to create something akin to a school, with different parents teaching different subjects. This meant that while the kids socialization groups were small, they did hang out with and learn with other kids, not just their siblings.

And you would be wrong. It is a few very wealthy people manipulating the masses. It is who THEY are, not who WE are; although to be fair, we are finding out more and more who we are... and a surprisingly large number of folks are full of hate and selfishness. Regardless, the government does NOT represent the typical person.

Um, why does only the conspiracy theorist in you think that, when Project 2025 actually explains what you are seeing? It doesn't take a theory to understand what is going on, it merely takes reading comprehension. No shadowy conspiracy, it is written down for you to read. The project is working wonderfully, thank you for asking.

It's more than that. Research into the possibility of a link between vaccination and autism has been done, and no correlation found. This is evidence that there is no connection and it's entirely different from a case where no research has been done. One is evidence of absence, the other is absence of evidence. The GP is equating them, but they're not remotely the same thing.

Technically, that statement is true. Words have precise meanings and when we distort them for our own purposes, insanity rules. You can be a rapist without ever once having sex with a person. Is the word rape poorly defined or are we trying to cover other acts adjacent to rape with the same umbrella as the term rape? It is all intellectual dishonesty and people like you feel justified in the performance.

Trump is a sick man who used defenseless young women under the age of majority. Isn't that bad enough without distorting the truth? Or are you afraid of what you might find when you look at the truth?

Show me all of the studies that have evaluated the correlation between FSM action and autism. There has been a lot of research on the possibility of a correlation between vaccination and autism, and no evidence of correlation has been found. There is an enormous difference between "We've looked hard and found no connection" (evidence of a negative) and "We haven't looked at all" (lack of evidence).

In addition, there's no need for the CDC to debunk a claims that are not being made, or non-harmful claims. To pick a less-ludicrous example, there's no significant population claiming that eating grapes causes autism, so there's no need for the CDC to address it. Further, if there were an anti-grape lobby touting a connection with autism, the CDC probably still wouldn't need to address it because some people avoiding grapes doesn't create significant health risks to others.

But there is a significant population claiming -- against strong scientific evidence -- that vaccines cause autism, and that claim is causing them to reject vaccines, which does create significant health risks for others. So, the CDC absolutely does need to address it, since public health is their job.

Your analogy is terrible, in every way.

Logic and rationality is not useful when trying to control a population; therefore, using logic and rationality to refute what you are being told is a fools errand. The ever-infamous "they" want your obedience, not your thought. AI is good enough for them.