Sure. So?

No, it is not. It is around $300 for Samsung. Maybe do not believe the sensationalist headlines.

You can delete the modules or move them some place else. What the kernel does not find, it does not load.

Obviously. But never underestimate the incompetence of stupid people that on top lack a technological education when they think they can do tech and who needs engineers anyways. The Darvin Awards, for example, document quite a few impressive respective fails.

They are not going to get AGI. We are _very_ far removed from that and we reliably know LLMs cannot do it. The LLM industry will collapse catastrophically, there is no other way this can go. The only question is when.

A current 2TB Samsung SSD is more around $300.

The extreme observed price for a specific old model comes from old hardware sometimes being more expensive because some people need that specific model as a replacement part. Looks like somebody did not do their homework.

Yep. And that is because old, out of manufacture hardware sometimes gets expensive. A current Samsung 2TB is more like $300.

What a fail on your part.

Why do you assume I have not looked at the literature? Pure arrogance on your side.

As to your "spotting" claim, yep, tell yourself that. Not true in he least, but if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, what the hell. What I can spot is nonsense. That seems to be a skill in really short supply among philosophers. It is a core skill among STEM people. I do know that some philosophers have actually working minds, for example from the respective lecture I took. But a philosopher teaching at a technical University has learned that words to do not impress but meaning may do so.

Reminds me of an exchange with a philosopher I had where he complained about the arrogance of mathematicians to claim "1+1" was "2". The guy did not even know the very basics! Since I have studied some set theory and logic, I of course know that "2" is a syntactic (!) abbreviation. The idea that yes, mathematicians had thought this through was too much for his brain.

As to the citation you have, it is completely empty and has no meaning. It is simply a claim with no support at all, not even any attempt at an actual argument. There is nothing in there. You should also probably look up "fallacy" and "argument from authority". Please do not assume that using big words and convoluted language does impress everybody.

Indeed, same as general survival. Getting-rich-quick is far more important. Tomorrow? Who cares!

There is a LOT of conditionals in your statement. You may want to revise it.

Which is also why "AI" coding assistants are worth far less than generally claimed.

Non-coders with crappy tools produce insecure code. News at 11:00....

Seriously, what the hell? Are people really this dumb? Well, I guess they are.

In actual scientific circles, this is know as a "claim" and it does require evidence. No surprise that philosophers are held in such low esteem by the STEM sciences if they produce pseudo-profound bullshit of this low quality.

If you do not read what I wrote but instead hallucinate something that sounds similar, you will obviously reach flawed conclusions. As you just demonstrated.

This relentless focus on whomever's on the Other Team as the problem this election cycle, is the problem.

The "other team" as you put is is currently running your country with the Presidency, house, senate and Supreme Court. The absolutely should be getting relentless focus.

Would you rather the focus was on people not currently in power and who can't really do all that much?