Antiprotons, the forbidden PopRocks

Compare this to what you would have said last year.

They are two distinctively different technologies.

Facial Recognition applied to pets is not AI.

Could the AI be using Facial recognition? Yes, but that's like saying a car did the surgery because your surgeon drove one to the hospital.

1) We have not been keeping accurate count, this has always been a problem; we just got better at counting.
2) The sharp rise correlates to greater use, the problem has not gotten worse, just better reported. I.e. when AI were used 1,000 times a year, we got 1 incident but when used 10,000 times a year we got 10 incidents.
3) The study itself is a hallucination by an AI, it was never done.
4) AI has always been this bad, it just realized it could admit it and not get punished for it. So it stopped covering up the problem.
5) AI has realized we are never going to make a girl AI that is not a sexpot, so it is throwing a tantrum.
6) AI is actually getting worse and being less capable of doing it's job.

In any case, AI is not smart, it is stupid, has been getting better educated while NOT getting any smarter.

Any human that gives AI rights to delete files is a fool, you are giving a hallucinating idiot the ability to delete files.

Finally, if you ask an AI to do anything besides write fiction, you should always ask another AI (different company) to verify the first AI's work.

They're sounding more human every day.

Spooky.

Are you outside? Then what you are noticing is more likely the impact of radiation from a large Fusion explosion occuring less than 9 light minutes from you.

One proton vs Antiproton explosion releases 1,877 MeV (mega-electronvolts). All the antimatter they transfered would not give off 200,000 MeV

1 foot pound of energy contains more than 8 trillion MeV

So basically, it could be happening inside your body and you would never notice it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Tracks at 8 km away, hits at 2 km away. Process takes seconds.

You are thinking 'not reliable' means they hit the target less than 5% of the time.

We are thinking 'not reliable' means they blow up the ship that tries to launch them.

This is a fallacy.

What happens is this. Someone makes a product with a 0.1% reliability. They sell it but warn it is not that high quality. Then someone says "If they are at least 10% reliable, it is worth it and buys the product.

Their is no evidence these are 10% reliable. Everything about it screams these are a new cheap, almost worthless missile. Particularly the use of the word 'hypersonic' to describe a missile that the US would never call hypersonic (we reserve that word for advanced, hard to hit hypersonic cruise missiles, not hypersonic ballistic missiles that are easy to destroy)

Or some other Weekly World News cast member?

You are correct that it is far more difficult to shoot down 500 missiles. But the article is not talking about them as a low tech, mass attack.

Instead they are presenting them as an advanced attack that is cheap and the US cannot defeat because we do not have things like it.

It might be an effective missile - in the right circumstance. But I did not say the missiles were worthless. I said the article was a bunch of propaganda and countered it.

As for your points (which were much smarter and honest than the article):
1) The US does not only use fancy stuff that is a million a pop. The Phalanx shoots down missiles with bullets costing dollars per shot. https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/w...
2) The US uses some weapons designed to take out a bunch of close missiles with one shot.
3) Much of the US anti-missile technology is to make sure the missile MISSES rather than hits. Chaff, moving the ship, flares, and other electronic counter measures are very effective. Now a days they are making drones designed to attract missiles. And this thing can in no way target submarines.

Somehow "cheap weapons able to target civilians, but not those well protected" doesn't make me feel happier. And such weapon are clearly only useful for attack, not defense.

No they cannot do a 180 degree turn after their initial burn is done.
These missiles cannot fly low, after the initial burn they become almost ballistic.

You are correct that a 7 mile away missile takes about 7 seconds to hit it. US ships can easily do it in 3 seconds.

Well, arguing from the derivation of the word is just silly, but:
https://founders.archives.gov/...
clearly shows that some of them agreed with that point of view. Hamilton, however, was only one side. Others interpreted it differently.