Keep watching for a flying car announcement any day now

Only seems worthless because you missed the point. You can take simple, well-understood components that do nothing particularly exciting. Add some training, and if you have enough of them, you have a reasonably functional earthworm. But if you increase the scale massively, the exact same simple components exhibit emergent behaviours.

Neither can brain cells. All they can do is just sum their inputs and trigger their output if it exceeds a threshold value.

Unrelated to 6502, but may be of interest because it's a very early version of MicroSoft Basic, here is a photorealistic sim of it running on an Altair with an ASR33.

It's the actual binary of the basic interpreter, running on simulated Altair and simulated ASR-33, with actual sounds and at proper speed. Gives a flavour for where the this Basic interpreter first saw light

https://s2js.com/altair/sim.ht...

Cats are people. They're just not human people.

What could make more sense than running the prime meridian through Trumps ensuite

In other news, 500 trillion synapses are better than 100 billion

When I ask my accountant a question, I've already done my reading and know what a correct answer should look like. If I end up surprised then I will be doing further reading, and perhaps get back to her with some follow-up questions. When I walk in to buy a TV and ask the spotty kid which one to purchase, likewise I've done my homework and already have some views. Even with my doctor - I well understand that Dr Google is not a helpful thing, but I will read and seek knowledge and work to understand what my doctor says. I tend not to just accept *anything* at face value.

AI is a useful tool in the hands of a skilled subject-matter expert. In the hands of a neophyte you may as well be walking into a bar after midnight seeking opinions.

What would it take for me to trust an AI? About the same for me to just blindly trust a human.

Note we do make exceptions where we don't have much choice -- airline pilots for example. I'm sitting back swilling my G&T where the T stands for Trust :)

The average fund manager, on average, performs worse than average. You'd think it would be a mathematical impossibility, but the way they achieve this miracle is through use of fees.

Another interesting data point is that, in general instead of putting your money with the manager who did best last year, a better strategy is to put your money with the one who did worst.

Being an active fund manager sounds easy and fun.

There's more to it than that. One day last week I performed four transactions with a major bank. Two notifications arrived, two did not.

Especially when Cloudflare is involved. No bounce. Just dropped - sometimes.

Concur. Emails get lost. In particular Gmail and Cloudflare sometimes don't play well together. The last week in particular. Nothing Cloudflare can do to fix it because Gmail is just dropping emails - sporadically.

Yes, but only because most men will have some evidence of prostate cancer when they die, detectable only by autopsy. In terms of dying "of", the numbers are similar to women dying of breast cancer. So this is not a disease to disregard.

People die of prostate cancer - similar numbers to women dying of breast cancer. Note "die of", not "die with". The truism that "you're more likely to die with than of" is a great disservice to men -- it's only true because (pretty much) half of all men will die with some evidence of extremely slow growth prostate cancer, detectable only during autopsy. But plenty of men die "of" prostate cancer. In some demographics, more men die of prostate cancer than women die of breast cancer. BUT - many more years are lost to breast cancer and it sometimes involves young women leaving young children, so it's more tragic.

Scientists replace one method of producing results by means they don't understand, with another.