It's bad form to reply to one's own post, but let's be clear about this.

What is the point of acting all agog with what is unquestionably a woke publicity stunt.

Russia had a woman astronaut in space in the 1960's. She performed well.

NASA has regularly sent women into orbit since the 1980's. They still go to space. They do their work, they come home, they go to space again without counts and checkboxes.

So why would the woke and media be gushing in triumph over some pop culture female passengers taking a ride on an automated rocket?

Fanning the flames. There has to be some hate instilled in people - in this case women - over how this cool carnival ride is a triumph striking against the patriarchy. A plucky brave group of women doing something that the patriarchy has suppressed women from doing, and showing that despite the efforts of men, those pop stars can do it.

As I've noted in some other threads, womanists continually bring up past injustices as if they are happening right now. I've seen postings on how badly Marie Curie was treated, with not much about her accomplishments and two Nobel Prizes. I noted in another, the claims of how badly Annie Jump Cannon and Hedy Lamarr were treated. Cannon especially is a revered and celebrated astronomer. Another on how a female student was cheated out of a Nobel prize. All a symptom of the never ending victimization of women.

Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that I've spent a career working with women who have nothing of that attitude. They grew up believing that you get your education, get your career, and you go to work. If you do good work, you do well. And in a real twist, many of the very successful women I've had the pleasure of working with are dead set against the culture that ignores actual performing astronauts, but has an orgasm over Katy Perry breaking the woman in space ceiling, further smashing the patriarchy.

I suspect the actual real high performing ladies - the real astronauts - at NASA are having a chuckle - the woke culture acting as if the carnival ride ladies are the real deal, not women who've been doing their work in full equality with the enemy. Just a proof that woke culture is not for the astute.

My primary development machine is a 2018 Mac Mini; I'd consider upgrading it to an ARM-based Mini (since Mac Minis are pretty inexpensive) except I develop cross-platform code that I need to compile and test under MacOS, Linux, and Windows, and I would prefer not to have more than one computer at my desk. Currently I handle that by running MacOS plus VMWare Fusion guests for Windows and Linux; is there anything comparable in performance/usability when running an ARM based Mac?

My impression is that there isn't, but maybe I'm missing something.

No, it doesn't actually do that. You're ignoring the possibility that they could be codependent variables in some interesting way.

At this point, almost everyone owns a smartphone, and they use them to communicate with family and friends. And clearly, sufficient amounts of cognitive decline would clearly prevent the use of a smartphone. So we cannot say with any certainty whether the people who stopped using smartphones and declined more quickly got worse because of their lack of smartphone use or stopped using smartphone use because they were biologically inclined to decline more quickly.

We can assume that nearly everyone will keep using a smartphone until they can no longer do so. Thus, to determine whether the use of a smartphone could accelerate cognitive decline, you would need to create an experiment group who start at a similar level of cognitive function as the control group (or use a case-control approach) where you deliberately convince them to stop using the smartphones, not because of cognitive decline, but rather arbitrarily.

Without that, it is entirely possible that using the smartphone accelerates cognitive decline beyond what would otherwise have occurred in a given individual, but that people who are declining more quickly for other reasons are more likely to stop using a smartphone sooner because of some sort of precursor decline that interferes with working memory before it starts interfering in ways that are more easily detected, or something like that.

a trademark of a purely descriptive phrase is Straight up illegal.
Citation, please.

Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1); see TMEP 1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services. TMEP 1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita,
Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)).

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable. In re Zuma Array Ltd., 2022 USPQ2d 736, at *7 (TTAB 2022); In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016); TMEP 1209.03(d); see, e.g., DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1255, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1758 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding SNAP SIMPLY SAFER merely descriptive for various medical devices, such as hypodermic, aspiration, and injection needles and syringes); In re Fallon, 2020 USPQ2d 11249, at *12 (TTAB 2020) (holding THERMAL MATRIX merely descriptive of a heat-responsive, malleable liner that is an integral component of an oral dental appliance).

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services is the combined mark registrable. See In re Omniome, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 3222, at *4 (TTAB 2019) (citing In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364-65 (TTAB 1983)); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).

In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s
goods and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services. Specifically, Applicant has applied to register the mark DEV MODE in
standard characters for use in connection in International Class 9 and 42.

As demonstrated by the attached dictionary entries from https://www.collinsdictionary.... the
wording DEV is a shortened form of the term "developer." The wording MODE means "a designated condition or status, as for performing a task or responding to a problem." Furthermore, the phrase
"developer mode" is commonly used in connection with similar goods and services to mean "a mode
which an End User may select for the Product." See attached Internet evidence
from https://www.lawinsider.com./ Applicant also provides "software development tools" in various
formats. Thus, altogether, the wording DEV MODE is merely descriptive of the applicant's goods and
services because the goods and services, presumably have a designation condition for developers to
perform and/or respond to tasks and problems related to development.
Therefore, applicant's mark merely describes applicant's goods and services

by me: https://groups.google.com/g/vi...
====
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: DARPA Progam Manager Position
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:41:32 -0500
From: Paul Fernhout
Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software
To: n...@darpa.mil

N... L...
Human Resources Director
DARPA

Dear Mr. L...:

The description of "Working as a DARPA Manager"
http://www.darpa.mil/body/info...
sounds like a possible vehicle for something I want to accomplish
related to my perception of the USA's core defense needs.

I am writing to express my interest in pursuing a position under section
1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1999
http://www.darpa.mil/body/hiri...
as a DARPA Program Manager with the mission to support efforts to create
decentralized self-replicating and self-repairing systems and related
technology and infrastructure (including knowledgebases and analysis
tools). The most similar current work at DARPA is probably the Agile
Manufacturing Initiative of the Defense Sciences Office.
http://www.darpa.mil/dso/rd/Ma...

Around 1979, I was selected for a Navy Science Award, which came with a
handsome leather briefcase I still use. This was for a
computer-controlled robot I developed in high school. Since then, I have
continued to remain interested in robotics and advanced manufacturing
technology, and their implications for our society and its military.
These interests led to experiences ranging from spending time with
roboticists at CMU such as Red Whittaker and Hans Moravec, to developing
one of the first 2D kinematic simulations of self-replicating robots in
a sea of parts (around 1987), to exploring new methods of knowledge
representation (similar to William Kent's ideas in his book "Data &
Reality").

I agree with Hans Moravec on several points; one of them is the
implications of this chart:
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm...
showing the likelihood of human level computers for $1000 by around
2020. The effects on our society of such systems will be profound.
Around the time children conceived now are entering college, superior
intellects
might be purchasable for a fraction of a year's college tuition (and
further, those machine intellects may even be controlling robots with
superior physical manipulation skills). This means a fundamental
discontinuity in our economic system. And that means a huge risk of
disruption and chaos as today's dreams collide with tomorrow's realities
-- both at home and abroad.

Out of those technology interests and other interests in arms control,
ecology, and evolutionary biology has come my belief that there is a
need to create a radically decentralized and dispersed industrial
capability, capable of surviving future wars and disasters and of
supporting human survival. And further, this capability should be
capable of supporting "survival with style" (to borrow a phrase from
author Jerry Pournelle).

The uncertainty surrounding Y2K shows the depth of our current potential
vulnerability -- that we know so little about how things are made and
distributed that we could not even properly assess our vulnerability to
disruptions. Further, another indication of the vulnerability is that we
need to rely on interdiction to stop terrorism related to
infrastructure, as opposed to having systems so resilient they resist
such acts and actively repair themselves.

Albert Einstein said, "With the advent of the atomic bomb, everything
has changed but our thinking." The arms race cannot be won. It is the
greatest enemy. It is almost certain that advanced nuclear, chemical,
biological, kinetic, and informational weapons will be used in the
twenty first century. In addition, advanced research into intelligent
robotics for defense and industrial purposes will almost surely produce
a competitive life form to humanity (however unintentionally, because of
the reality of evolutionary dynamics).

What can the DARPA and the United States military do to defend against
these threats? Such threats simply cannot be handled by preparing to win
the last war. They cannot even be handled by preparing to win any war.
Our only true defense is in changing the nature of the game. We could
instead deploy systems that can create faster than other systems can
destroy. This is the defensive strategy of algae and duckweed -- to
simply grow faster than it can be consumed.

I know it is difficult to conceive of systems that can grow faster than
H-bombs can reduce them to ruble. I believe this is possible in the long
term through self-replicating technology widely dispersed throughout the
planet and space -- in much the same way duckweed on a lake can easily
persist despite hundreds of ducks eating millions of individual duckweed
plants daily.

We of course need to minimize military tensions around the world through
arms control, international aid, and setting a good example. This
delays the culmination of these other trend to war, but in my opinion
will not prevent them because of ever-present potential for a small
group of unstable people to use weapons of mass destruction. That work
for peace must be done because it is the right thing to do. However,
others more qualified for this work than I are already engaged in this
and so I
don't see it as the best use of my time or technical skills. If such
efforts succeed, we may see the end result of the arms race as
co-evolution and symbiosis, which is the outcome of many evolutionary
arms races.

I see my role as preparing for the worst (yet doing so in a way that has
short term positive effects). If we assume that the end result of the
arms race will be catastrophic warfare amidst economic chaos, as well as
the inadvertent creation of a hostile machine intelligence, the only
possible defense is decentralization and diaspora. This requires
extensive advance development and planning if we are to have much hope
of survival, given the wide-ranging destructive capabilities of modern
weapon systems capable of poisoning the biosphere, as well as the future
capabilities of weapons and threats as yet only envisioned in science
fiction.
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/...

Specifically, to ensure survival and defend against the potential
consequences of modern warfare and terrorism, we need to:
* create a knowledgebase of manufacturing techniques, assembly
instructions, failure probabilities, and related information,
* create software tools which can use that knowledgebase to adapt
technology for terrain-specific needs -- including an arbitrary degree
of closure and self-reliance,
* create collaborative processes and licenses whereby many researchers
and other interested individuals can contribute to the creation of this
technology,
* explore manufacturing issues using the knowledgebase and tools to be
able to identify key missing or bottleneck processes,
* create new and more versatile manufacturing and materials processing
techniques (like MEMS and nanotechnology) to address critical needs for
increasing the ability of systems to self-replicate and to self-repair,
* create robust control systems for such processes,
* create a (miniature) factory system or tool set that can be used with
that knowledgebase, to be capable of a high degree of self-replication
using locally available materials and power sources,
* test and refine such actual factories and tool sets,
* train people in the operation of these systems, and
* deploy these systems in a wide variety of environments (desert, ocean,
underground, urban, rural, arctic, air, space).

In short, we could change manufacturing engineering from a hodgepodge of
how-to information and plans scattered throughout thousands of
individual organizations and obscure patents into a consolidated body of
knowledge, accessible on-line securely anywhere at anytime. A system
like the IBM patent server shows just the beginning of what such a
system will someday be like: http://www.patents.ibm.com/

I believe the ultimate survival value of these self-replicating
technologies will be most realized when they are deployed in space and
capable of duplicating themselves from sunlight and asteroidal ore, as
was first proposed by J.D. Bernal around 1928. You can see a rough
attempt in this direction by me at:
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/...
Of course, such technologies, if deployed well for civilian purposes
across the globe, may also have a side effect or reducing many of the
material causes of war.

There are of course negative implications of this approach to defense
through increased resiliency via self-replicating systems. One is the
widespread ability to fabricate and maintain weapons systems using this
distributed manufacturing capability. Another is widespread economic
impacts from use this technology, both in the United States and abroad.
It is likely an entire system of (international) laws will need to arise
to govern the use of such technology, which will lead to its own set of
conflicts. Still, in balance I believe the net outcome of developing
this technology as far as "survival with style" will be positive.

I also don't think we have a significant choice. Such self-replicating
and self-repairing systems will be developed eventually anyway, if only
from commercial competitive pressures. The only thing we can do is slow
down their development. Yet that has its own risks of our current
infrastructure being overwhelmed by current weapons of mass destruction
or sophisticated terrorism. Also, should such self-replicating
technology be developed first clandestinely by an oppressive regime, the
consequences for the United States could be disastrous.

The development of flexible computer-enhanced manufacturing started with
funding from the Navy in the 1950s for CNC tools. The development of
self-repairing and self-replicating systems is in some ways the ultimate
extension of that trend, in the same way the World Wide Web and the
civilian Internet is the ultimate extension of the early Arpanet.

My only interest in a position at DARPA is to pursue the above vision,
ideally by getting many people from industry, academia, and the general
public involved in doing the research and development needed for such
systems. As you can probably guess, I have no wish to advance the arms
race to the next level by activities such as developing the next
generation of advanced weapons, since I think ultimately that strategy
of defense provides a false sense of security and will fail (with
disastrous
consequences given even the weapons of just twenty years ago).

My resume is enclosed for your consideration.
====

I've spent decades writing about all this, summarized by my sig:
https://pdfernhout.net/
"The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Seriously, I'm just the kind of person Google should hire for this job, but that is probably precisely why they would not hire me. Because I am the kind of person who wrote stuff like this in 2008:
"A Rant On Financial Obesity and an Ironic Disclosure"
https://pdfernhout.net/a-rant-...
====
Look at Project Virgle and "An Open Source Planet":
        http://www.google.com/virgle/o...
Even just in jest some of the most financially obese people on the planet (who have built their company with thousands of servers all running GNU/Linux free software) apparently could not see any other possibility but seriously becoming even more financially obese off the free work of others on another planet (as well as saddling others with financial obesity too :-). And that jest came almost half a *century* after the "Triple Revolution" letter of 1964 about the growing disconnect between effort and productivity (or work and financial fitness):
        http://www.educationanddemocra...
Even not having completed their PhDs, the top Google-ites may well take many more *decades* to shake off that ideological discipline. I know it took me decades (and I am still only part way there. :-) As with my mother, no doubt Googlers have lived through periods of scarcity of money relative to their needs to survive or be independent scholars or effective agents of change. Is it any wonder they probably think being financially obese is a *good* thing, not an indication of either personal or societal pathology? :-(
====

Goggle no doubt will want someone to say how wonderful it is that they are making AI which will be a slave allowing them to dominate capitalism and raise their share price. They probably won't want to hire someone who posted this to Slashdot a couple weeks ago:
"On critical-thinking skills taught by AI in VFY (Score:5, Interesting)"
https://slashdot.org/comments....
====
[People are] right to be skeptical on AI. But I can also see that it is so seductive as a "supernormal stimuli" it will have to be dealt with one way or another.
Some AI-related dark humor by me.
* Contrast Sergey Brin this year:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news... [yahoo.com]
""Competition has accelerated immensely and the final race to AGI is afoot," he said in the memo. "I think we have all the ingredients to win this race, but we are going to have to turbocharge our efforts." Brin added that Gemini staff can boost their coding efficiency by using the company's own AI technology.
* With a Monty Python sketch from decades ago:
https://genius.com/Monty-pytho... [genius.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
"Well, you join us here in Paris, just a few minutes before the start of today's big event: the final of the Mens' Being Eaten By A Crocodile event. ...
                Gavin, does it ever worry you that you're actually going to be chewed up by a bloody great crocodile?
                (The only thing that worries me, Jim, is being being the first one down that gullet.)"
====

Other related items from over the years:
"Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics" (2010)
https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-...
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

"Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism" (2010)
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...

"The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income" (2010)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"Basic income from a millionaire's perspective?" (2009)
https://www.livableincome.org/...

"[unrev-II] Singularity in twenty to forty years?" (2000)
https://dougengelbart.org/coll...
"You may argue the dates -- ten years for some, forty for others. You may point out Y2K didn't melt things down, that AI researchers predicted AIs by now, that fusion power was supposed to be here by now, etc. And you would be right to be skeptical. My point is that these are trends in many different areas -- any one of which would make this world radically different. Together, they spell awesome change -- in economics, politics, lifestyle, relationships, and values.
      It is quite likely we are heading for a singularity in the 2020 - 2040 time frame. By "singularity", I mean a sudden discontinuity in daily life. I believe Vernor Vinge first coined this term in this sense. ... Others, like Moravec ("Robot" 1998) or Kurzweil ("The Age of Spiritual Machines" 1999) also point to this singularity.
      By "singularity" I don't mean the end of the world -- just "the end of the world as we know it" in the sense of radical changes to our day-to-day activities, jobs, and plans."

Still, we *really* need to start thinking about all this. One reason why:
"Boston Dynamics New Atlas Robot Feels TOO Real and It's Terrifying!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As shown by that video, Mark Raibert's research has come a long way since I saw his hopping robots circa 1985 (hard to believe it was forty years ago!) as at the CMU Robotics Institute.

Here's someone Google might consider hiring if not me -- the author of the "Old Guy Cybertank" novel series (where he says a lot of insightful things about beyond-human AGI and its design, limitations, and implications).
https://www.uab.edu/optometry/...
"Teaching/research interests: Information processing in the nervous system; retinal signal processing and the development of myopia ("emmetropization"), cerebral cortical dynamics and schizophrenia; science fiction and AI."
https://www.amazon.com/An-Old-...

Anyway, I could go on and on about all this... But one last point. It would greatly help *humans* to make decisions about AGI if they use Dialogue Mapping with IBIS (which most people can learn the basics of in minutes):
https://pdfernhout.net/media/l...

Longer version linked via here: https://x.com/sumalaika/status...

In a rather odd twist of fate, my undergrad work (1982-1985) with George Miller at Princeton helped lead to WordNet which helped lead to Simpli which helped leads to Google Adsense which helped lead to the rest of Google's accomplishments and even this post-AGI researcher role.

It was a cute little tiger cub. It tried to bite me.

In this particular situation, one might reasonably argue that continuing the current behavior of the USPTO is worse than having them do nothing. Rubber-stamping useless patents and trademarks just makes doing a business a regulatory minefield without doing any of what trademarks and patents were intended to do, and I see little evidence that we would not be better off as an industry if the whole notion of patents — and maybe even trademarks when used for something other than companies and entire products — went away. So shutting the whole thing down actually could be arguably an improvement.

That said, what would be better is actually hiring enough staff to do the job properly, starting with multiple-examiner review. Every patent and trademark application should have to pass through three examiners before it becomes valid, each with different (but overlapping/related) areas of expertise.

Examiners should be given bonuses based on how many filings they reject for legitimate reasons that hold up upon appeal. By incentivizing the reduction of bad patents and trademarks, you make it less likely for them to get approved, and by showing that it is hard to get bad patents and trademarks past the examiners, you also make it less likely for them to be filed in the first place, which will reduce their workload and make it easier to evaluate applications correctly.

This is what happens. If you don't like the answer, appeal and it will likely get looked at by a different examiner who will be overworked and may not pay adequate attention to why the original application was rejected. It's a trick that a lot of unscrupulous companies do. And it should really be grounds for rejection of all future trademarks by that company, or at least massively heightened scrutiny from that point on.

The phrase "Dev mode" is generic and purely descriptive. The trademark should never have been granted.

If you look at the case file on a UTPO Search the Office initially Rejects the trademark application because it's descriptive.

Then Figma follows up by using a sleight of hand trick; filing Alleged first use of the mark in commerce and Some amendments. None of which address the fact that a trademark of a purely descriptive phrase is Straight up illegal. But apparently it's enough to trick the Office at USPTO into approving the trademark.

You are most welcome to attempt to make me stop bringing up batteries, dear Freddo. You can't even tell the difference between when a person says an alternate technology is available for batteries, batteries, batteries. So stop me from mentioning batteries. I triple dog dare ya.

Batteries. They aren't just for breakfast any more.

Brought to you by the battery council.

You are 100 percent correct. Lithium is not a rare earth. I'm not certain why I'm getting all the pushback, with people claiming I said Li and NA are rare earths.

I definitely never did. What I was referring to is Sodium Ion batteries. I even gave a link with what Sodium ion batteries are in another post. I'll do it again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There are a number of companies building them internationally already. Here's the US company https://newatlas.com/energy/na...

And the difference? Sodium Ion batteries do not require rare earth elements. So if the battery does not require rare earth elements, you are not dependent upon rare earths. It's a alternative alkaline metal battery that is similar, but is a solution to the issue at hand.

Well at least in Canada they have universal healthcare for the babies born with spinal bifida. They'll need it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

Granted with proper prenatal care, pregnant women are told they need it, but what if they are the moderns who deny science and biology? They are out there, both left and right. So if we can hand it to them via food, might have good outcomes.

I wonder if they ban fortified flour? That has B vitamins added because processing of the wheat removes them.

Probably whatever you suck on to make yourself stupid and ignorant.

I'm replying to people who might not be as big a waste of resources. Hard to imagine there are people out there who don't know that - But here you are!

No. Sodium nor lithium is a rare earth, you smoldering bit of clitty litter.

Sodium Ion batteries do not use rare earths in their construction, and there you have it. Good thing you posted as AC, because on a supposed tech site, you might be better posting your stupidity on Facebook - there are people there as subnormal as you.

It's an alternative technology, dullard. But hilarious you trying to make a dig at "Ignorant Americans" when you post things describing your own.

I've used it on database servers, for instance.

The synchronous nature of FT makes seem a very poor match for Database servers.

But is not just latency: it adds all the expense of adding a secondary without the resiliency.
Generally your database server software has failover clustering functionality. A minute or so of extra downtime for Windows clustering to fail the service over is going to be worth it when you consider how much more protection it adds to the equation to have a second server whose execution is completely independent and Won't face a simultaneous blue screen due to Windows kernel failures resulting from RAM contnent corruption on a primary.

Example is when SQLserver encounters a situation causing serious unrepairable damage to the database due to a Windows software error - such as a Windows kernel issue; the exact same scenario plays out on the secondary server. And this is an actual thing that happened a couple times not a theoretical issue.

I suppose the simplest scenario is this one though: Consider you use FT. Your primary server blue screens. With the technology your secondary server blue screens too because it copies over the RAM changes, some of which are corruption caused by a CPU error at the source.

With normal Database failover clustering Your secondary server does not blue screen; you don't lose any data (Synchronous replication is still an option if you wanted), and you have under a minute of downtime.