If they come within 3 feet of you whisper:

"Please buy something, if you don't they will fire me and my children will starve"

Franklin was not an underling. She was the competition. She did not work for Watson in any way.

She came up with the correct data 2 years earlier, she paid for the photograph to be made.

The man that stole the photo was her enemy.

The people that did the math had no legal access to the photo.

True discoverers do not have dirty laundry to air. Name one other nobel prize winner story that had this kind of dirty laundry.
Science is not perfect. There are scum everywhere. But this kind of a-hole behavior is pretty rare.

There are to my mind, 4 controversial nobel prizes, but this is by far the most controversial one, in my opinion.

The other three are:

Haber - who deserved the prize he got for Chemistry despite working for World War One Germany's poison gas program.

Obama - who did not deserve and did not ask for the Noble prize he got for being the first black president. He did a great job as President - not once having to send the national guard to deal with riot, not once having SCOTUS having to stop an investigation into him.

Arafat - who deserved the peace prize despite being a violent extremist before he earned it.

Translation1: Those companies are making a mistake by not giving him what he wants for free, in order for his company to become profitable.

Translation2: Those companies should not have put stuff on the internet for sale with a paywall if they didn't want people like me to steal it without getting permission.

He said the four top companies were "AI centric".
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta

These are NOT AI companies. Their business is not currently funded by AI, nor is it their main focus. They ARE very rich computing companies that think AI is going to become their business, so they heavily invest in it $360 billion.

That is NOT a big investment for those four companies - they are worth more than 9 trillion total. Spending about 10% of their value is significant, but not amazing.

The issue is that humans are bad at large numbers. We get so shocked and surprised about the large things that we do not know if that number is a lot or a little.

Example: $2 billion dollars spent on socks a year. Is that the number for France, the number for the US, or the number for the entire world? If you do not know then you cannot tell if that number is high or low. It happens to be the number for the US. But you have no frame of reference to know if it was for the entire world or for France.

When a reporter tells you how big something is, chances are they have no idea if that number is too large or too small.

Crick and Watson were on the wrong track until Franklin's personal nemesis, a man named Wilkins proved them wrong by stealing Franklin's work and showing it to Crick and Watson.

Watson instantly realized DNA was Helix in 1953 after seeing Franklin's photograph taken in 1952.

Which was an amazing insight considering Franklin had already called it a Helix in 1951 - before she even had the photo in question.

Looking at other people's work and realizing they were right does not make you a discoverer. It makes you a thief.

Crick and Watson did figure out the specifics of the helical structure, but that was more of a proof of Franklin's discovery than anything else.

You are wrong.

1) China emissions has not PEAKED. It still grows.

2) Per capita is not the only way to measure it and it sucks when dealing with country like China with huge number of people in poverty and a few wealthy.

Better ways than per capita include, but are not limited to:

Per GDP
Per Gwh of electricity produced

Any of these makes far more sense. Going per capita is something a Chinese bot would spread as reasonable without thinking about how it radically favors China. Just as the US could come up with Per $ of exported goods because it favors them.

Per Gwh makes the most sense because it measures production better than GDP which includes profits. Moreover, it makes change much easier to see. If you put in coal factories it makes it worse no matter what.

1) Growth. Here you are growing and hiring. You have figured out how to make money and are doing it as fast as you can. Even if someone is bad at their job, they already know how to do it - so you simply let them keep it while everyone else is promoted. They have to really screw up to get fired. Business wise, every decision has to be profitable - but if you got a good product that can be easy to do because you have no real competition.

2) Expansion. Here your business has thrived and succeeded, but it needs to expand beyond the original offerings. Business wise you can take risks. You are now competing with other companies but hopefully have some edge. Maybe you add new products, maybe you go international. The difference between growth and expansion is that you are trying new things, not just teaching everyone how to make money your way. You might actually fire people here, but not a lot. If people keep there head down, they are pretty safe.

3) Mergers. Here you start buying innovation rather than starting it in house. Your expansions are no longer working, perhaps because they do not fit the brand you have created. Decisions are now accounting based. X companies has a greater return on investment than yours does but is small enough for you to buy out. You often fire people after a merger - either your old employees who are not as good as the people you bought, or the people you bought who are as good as the ones you already had.

4) Cost Cutting. Over time your growth and expansion moved so fast you developed some expensive practices. You got your business down, but now it is time for some corporate decisions. Buy the cheaper packaging. Raise expectations - and fire those that cannot meet them. Which expenses are truly necessary and which can be replaced with cheaper options. If you cut the wrong costs, you destroy your brand quality and reputation. If you cut nothing, your competition starts stealing your lunch.

Almost all companies go forward, from 1 to 4 rather easily. But it is very hard to go back a phase - with one exception. If you have grown large enough and saved enough money after a cost cutting phase, you can go back to mergers.

The worst part is when some idiot thinks they can go back to expansions - come up with in house ideas that are better than other companies. This almost NEVER works (unless you fired one of the founders - then you can hire him back and pretend it is not a merger). Why? Because you are already a big company - with all the bureaucracy the Mergers and Cost cutting created. This slows you down and a new expansion has to be incredible to make a difference to your large balance sheet.

The US shifted away from a manufacturing economy. It is more agriculture/mining/Petroleum, and more service. Less industry.

We moved a lot of the particularly high energy industries out of the country, so this helped our climate, at the cost of China where those industries moved.

I work in localization. Technical writing is often easier for machine-translation systems, because the writing is (ideally) deliberately clear, concise, and structured.

The terminology issue you mention can be addressed at least partially by feeding any such machine-translation system a list of words and phrases to keep as-is in the target text.

Fiction, meanwhile, often involves complicated and subtle wordplay, which no AI system is going to handle very well.

Already thrilled to learn what erotic literature..

.. will read like, after it has been dragged through the automatic translation process. Even the automatically translated descriptions of sex toys on Aliexpress are hilarious, and those are really short and not sophisticated.

I can see it now:

"I put on my robe and wizard hat..."

How about giving the choice for an analog control and taking the wasted extra money spent on computer chips + design + digital display and making the motor last longer?

I would love it if some manufacturer would produce tried-and-true analog designs without all the extra add-on, planned-obsolescence, enshittified bullshit. I suspect this approach would do quite well in the market, at least in certain product categories -- blenders, ovens, washing machines, etc.

Actually, this reminds me to take a look at Lehman's catalog, see what they're getting up to these days. I bumped into them quite by accident ages ago when a relative was living in Amish country. Poking around their website just now, I see things like ovens and hand-cranked mixers. A bit pricey, but no "ET phone home" rubbish and solid workmanship.

• https://www.lehmans.com/

(Crikey, slashcode still doesn't render bulleted lists correctly. How stupidly embarrassing.)

Oh my god, you are insanely uninformed. It's like you have no idea what is going on. The GOP is the people that are getting everything they want - they wrote the bill. If they want it to pass they have to give up SOMETHING.

Yes it is about compromise. But the DNC has given up EVERYTHING while the GOP has offered nothing. They will not even sit down to negotiate at all.

The Democrats are not 'crying', they are totally willing to sign off on every other huge, major change the GOP wants, all they want is healthcare.

What a spoiled little brat you are to think the GOP is entitled to totally ignore everything the DNC wants, but then the DNC has to give up something - when they have nothing left to give up.

The DNC have ONE thing and one thing only - the right to vote no on the funding bill that gives them nothing and takes away 50 years of progress. They are giving it up entirely in exchange for healthcare.

Yeah, you are a child that gets all the presents and everything you want and then gets upset when the other kids want a bite of your birthday cake. Then you try to charge them for it - after they already bought you all the gifts you just opened up.

A lot of the things he mentioned were totally irrelevant to the manufacturing boom.

Here are the things that actually mattered:

1) Post WW 2, total lack of international competition. When most of the industrialized countries were bombed to crap, there was a period of 5 -ten years when they had to buy American to fix their factories, and then they had 5-10 years when they were focused on rebuilding the rest of their country.

2) Baby Boom. 20 years after the war ended, there was a short period of time (10-15 years) when there was a whole lot of young people and very few old people. This was a boom to both industry and to a lesser extent scientific research.

3) Scientific advancement without paying the cost. That same period of 30 years or so that gave us industrial advantages also gave us scientific advancements. But they had hidden costs we would pay for later. Pollution. For a short time we were also benefiting from new products without realizing the damage we were doing to the planet. This lead to immediate industrial growth that we are STILL paying off the disadvantages from.

If your ticket is cancelled because of the government, will the airlines pay you back - or will they tell you to sue the government?