All outgoing session negotiations are also incoming traffic. Season negotiation is bidirectional. How do you expect a server to receive the outgoing packets for the client as incoming packets to the server during initial session negotiation?

People always seem to assume that Satashi Nokimoto is a single person, and if it isn't then there will always be some evidence pointing to "this is the guy" and some other evidence that "this isn't the guy", but I suspect it is team. Solving a puzzle basing the approach on a false assumption is a great way to guarantee you can't solve it.

I can't wait to hear your answer to this: How do you propose to establish sessions if all inbound traffic is blocked?

I get that you are an idiot. What baffles me is your intense need to tell everyone else what an idiot you are.

It was only a lie of omission if the pertinent information was intentionally withheld dipshit.

There are two categories of realtime: soft and hard. Realtime is complicated, and no OS can guarantee hard realtime if the hardware is not up to the task (excuse the pun.) For example, if you are running an OS written in assembly language on am Intel 8051 microcontroller clocked at 10 Mhz you cannot handle events that could easily achieve hard realtime on a modern system, because the task switching overhead alone precludes such capability, even if your application is just an infinite loop.

Yeah I'm kind of done feeding Google every scrap of information about me for advertising purposes. I switched to private search and email last year for about $100/year and don't miss them at all.

You have actually managed to out-stupid yourself. I didn't think it could be done!

A lie of omission is when pertinent information is withheld. I'm not even going to try to parse the rest of your nonsensical sentence.

I can't tell if you are lying or mistaken.

So AI can't be intelligent, but can be stupid? It seems AI is a lot like the typical person who posts as AC on Slashdot.

It's ironic that the human(s) reporting this couldn't do so without (apparently) lying, in the title no less. The article talks about accuracy, and an inaccuracy is not a lie unless it is intentional. Of course whomever wrote the title is likely seeking to impose their own anti-AI bias to the story, and so chose to lie about what the study actually says.

If you ask the average human to use a non-AI search engine to find out the answer to 100 non-trivial questions I can assure you that you will get many more than 10 incorrect answers.

Well, you can make the hydrogen easier to handle by binding it to carbon... Perhaps synthesizing jet fuel with carbon recaptured from the atmosphere will win, since it doesn't require modifying the planes and the new tech is on the ground.

I'm a real-time embedded Linux engineer. You are, well ... We all already know what you are. Off you go now little troll.