No one running at the national level in our lifetimes has *EVER* been interested in doing the most for the country.

Speak for yourself. I, OTOH, was born while Truman was President. Not that I remember him, but he was in office. I do, however, remember both Ike and JFK, and both of them did good things for the country, Ike by creating the Interstate Highway System and JFK by committing the nation to putting a man on the Moon within ten years.

A job so nice he did it twice?

At least he didn't feel the need to rape Thrace thrice.

I can't find it now, but back in the '70s there was a series of short stories about "Billy the JOAT," where his wide range of skills was needed to create/adapt something to fit an unusual situation. Of course, the writer designed the needs so that Billy's various skills were needed and hiring a JOAT was more economical than a group of specialists.

So when it comes to computers, you consider yourself a JOAT? If so, there are times that that's exactly what's needed and you can end up being very well paid because it's still less than hiring and paying three or four specialists.

It's a reference to the Colossal Cave Adventure where the only way to kill the dragon was with your bare hands.

Was there ever a version where you could kill the dragon with your bare hands?

For example, Britain had a theory of radar by the late 1920s, radar itself in much of the 30s, and airborne radar by 1937.

Knowing the theory behind a new technology is all well and good, but more important is what you do with it and how you develop it. As an example, in late 1944, the IJN had shipboard radar on most, if not all of its capital ships and some of its smaller ones. This could show an enemy fleet as separate squadrons, but couldn't resolve those squadrons into individual ships and they were just beginning to experiment with using radar to aim their guns. The USN had radar on most, if not all of its fleet, it was sharp enough to show squadrons as individual ships and it was routine to use it at night for fire control, as the Japanese learned the hard way. I'm sure I could find other examples if I put my mind to it, but I think I've made my point clear.

And yet, here in Trinidad, CO, not only did we get some rain on the 30st, we got some snow as well. Yes, it all melted as soon as it landed because the ground was too warm, but that just meant that it sunk right into the ground instead of evaporating into the air.

So yeah your AI can outperform a doctor that gets 5 minutes with the patient before having to move on to the next one in order to keep their private equity Masters satisfied.

So, suppose, we stick it to the "private equity Masters", compel them to double the number of doctors — forget for a second, who is going to pay for them — and afford them a whopping 10 minutes with the patient.

ChatGPT will still beat humans... And it will be getting better with every month, whereas the humans will not...

A new study from Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess found that an OpenAI reasoning model outperformed experienced ER doctors at diagnosing and managing patient cases

AI is sufficiently anthropomorphic to be capable of making mistakes. Demanding perfection from it is stupid. It does not need to be error-free. It just needs to be better than humans...

The classic kind, with one button.

You mean like the one on Dagwood's shirt?

Because, that's what we're (y'know, the sheeple) are told!

And that's because Ubuntu is designed to be used by Windows refugees and wannabe geeks who like bragging that they're using Linux but aren't interested in learning how it works or how to do any system maintenance that can't be done in a point-and-drool gooey. And for those of you who think I'm being too harsh, or find my description striking too close to home, try this: go to the main Ubuntu forum with a simple problem on an Ubuntu box that's past EOL and see how they respond. Then, do the same thing with an EOL Fedora box at one of their forums. Guess which one will help you and which one won't.

A good question that deserves a good answer. Back in Biblical Times, Hebrew didn't need to use vowels because the language is so regular that if you know the language and its alphabet you know what the vowels are and where they go. Vowels were developed and put into use so that people who didn't know Hebrew very well could still know how to pronounce the words. And, there are many people today who only bother with the vowels if they expect what they're writing to be read by people like me who can read Hebrew out lout f(Thanks, phonics!) but don't know what the words mean.

Economic warfare is more effective than weapons in some cases.

Yes, indeed it can be, and a classic example is the Danegeld which the Danes used to drain the English out of all the funds they might have used to pay soldiers and defend the realm so that when the Danes really invaded, the English were powerless to resist them in any meaningful or effective way. Not that I think that this was the Dane's intent, they were just interested in getting as much silver as possible without risking their lives in a fight.