Exactly, it's a global world and most companies aren't keen to turn their back on a wealthy 600,000,000 consumer base.
True, but it does not stop CEO worshipping Americans from thinking that corporations can act with complete impunity agains nation states despite the fact that every time the EU makes noises about taxing US tech companies their CEOs show up in the oval office to beg Trump for help.
You'll never have influence over other nation's companies!
Until they want to do business in your country and you can tax the profits they make there.
So another thing that MAGA gets butt-hurt over has been disappeared. Is anybody surprised? What Was the excuse? Purging satanic anti Trump commie moose-lamb science?
Don't forget the other end of the equation: has the time it takes for a customer to get their support issue effectively resolved decreased?
In a word?
No. The F150 is mostly empty. Burning batteries is really toxic.
True, because inhaling the smoke from gasoline and diesel fires is so good for your health
If these cheap EVs are going to spontaneously combust
Where does it say EVs caught fire? It only says the fire started on a deck that had EVs on it. Stats say the ICEV are far more likely to catch fire than a EV and there was 2400 ICEV on that boat with petrol in them, you know that flammable stuff.
There were 3,048 cars on that ship, 681 were hybrids and another, 70 were fully electric. The news outlets make it sound like all 3048 were electric. Some are more honest and mention the around 700 hybrids but still count these hybrids as "electric cars". I was only able to find one that actually reported the number of BEVs. Out of these the most fire prone are the Hybrids, followed by the full ICE cars and finally the BEVs which are by far the least likely to catch fire. The fire started: "in a deck carrying electric vehicles" meaning what started the fire was likely a Hybrid but we'll likely never know for sure. Not that any of this will stop Sky News and the luddites from claiming the ship was filled to the hatches with BEVs and that they all caught fire simultaneously and rendered Adak, Alaska 300 miles away uninhabitable due to toxic smoke.
Americans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels?
Hybrids are a stepping stone for conservative people with extreme anxieties about new technology i.e. about 40-50% percent Americans (excluding the MAGA base that thinks electric cars are a manifestation of satanic communism and that would rather ride a mule to work than drive an EV). The next step is usually a full EV when people figure out that range anxiety is bullshit and they spend most of their time driving their hybrid in full EV mode anyway. Aaaand yes, given the way the US works, with all the corruption and pork Americans seem to have come to consider normal I expect a lot of money to be wasted on synthetic fuels to keep the corpse of ICE industry twitching and as en excuse to pay out even more subsidies for chemical corporations and farmers in deep red Trump voting districts. Meanwhile I just returned from a tour of several developing countries in SE Asia where I kept track of the types of EVs and hybrids I saw. Chinese and S-Korean cars dominate with at least one Vietnamese brand sprinkled in, nothing American, hardly any Teslas, some European EVs, mostly luxury models and they seem to be transitioning directly to full EVs, no existential anxieties about new technologies there.
If you believe that stealth fighters are worthless then you need to learn of the "you should go home now" incident in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
An F-22 approached an Iranian F-4 that was attempting to shoot down an American drone. The F-4 pilot did not detect the F-22 on radar even when close enough that the F-22 pilot could visually inspect the F-4 weapon load-out. The F-4 pilot only became aware of the F-22 once the F-22 pulled up alongside the F-4 so that it was clearly in view of the pilot and called on the radio, "You should go home now."
The F-22 also had the advantage of data from other sensors like AEW&C and space based systems streamed directly into its cockpit whereas the IRAF doesn't have any of that and the F-4 pilot was entirely reliant on his forward sensor cone which the F-22 definitely avoided. A Typhoon J-10, J-16, Gripen or Rafale with access to fused data from multiple sensor layers streamed directly into the pilot's cockpit and an onboard IRST system would be far more difficult to surprise like that.
I can imagine someone saying this could not be repeated since the F-4 radar is likely quite outdated so the F-22 pilot got lucky. That F-4 wasn't the only aircraft in the air, there were ground stations in Iran searching the area for aircraft as that's how they knew where the drone was. Nobody saw the F-22 coming. Could newer radar detect the F-22 coming. Actually they can. They can detect the F-22 but not with enough resolution to fire upon it, at least not until within range of the weapons on the F-22.
Newer radar can guide a missile near enough for the missile's onboard sensors to find the F-22 acquire it and lock on for terminal guidance. Depending on the situation and how stealth the BVR missile is F-22 pilot might not even realize that he was being shot at until he was lit up by that missiles radar system (and that's assuming it doesn't use passive sensors for terminal guidance). This is basically what happened to that Rafale driver in India not that long ago.
Time to use all those pagers they bought a few years ago.
Iran didn't use all those pagers, Hezbollah did. What eventually made the Israelis use the pager bombs was some of the pagers being sent to Iran for in-depth forensic examination. Furthermore, after Russia hacked SolarWinds and used their update servers to install backdoors on systems belonging to government departments such as US Homeland Security, State, Commerce and Treasury, that time Chinese intelligence hacked US military contractors, stole F-35 design data and then hacked the US federal government's system for court authorized wiretapping I'd say this seems like a very sensible precaution. I could also bring up the that time White House National Security Advisor Michael Waltz invited a reporter into a Telegram group discussing classified aspects of airstrikes on Yemen but that wasn't an IT failure so much as it was just down to the galactic stupidity of Waltz and the other US government officials involved plus, I don't want to kick a dead horse.
I'm pretty sure Chinese spies use something more secure, and stealthy than WeChat to communicate with their informants in Russia.
Which would be far more suspicious and incriminating, drawing more attention. A public conversation with pre-determined codes is safer. A kitten pic means one thing, a puppy pic another. Matching eye colors one thing, different eye colors something else. Or go binary, the preceding gives 2 bits of data, 4 possible predetermined messages. Add more bits as necessary, wall color, on floor or on couch,
Sure, and data-mining the batch of chatter containing those conversations with an artificial intelligence will not raise any red flags.
"Russian counterintelligence agents are analyzing data from the popular Chinese messaging and social media app WeChat to monitor people who might be in contact with Chinese spies
I'm pretty sure Chinese spies use something more secure, and stealthy than WeChat to communicate with their informants in Russia.
Nobody is really in favour of limited government because when push comes to shove those who profess being in favour of limited government remain so only until they get into power.
If what you say is true it means lots, not none, are in favor of limited government because they do not seek power over others and thus wish for possible power over them to be minimized...
Basically the age-old axiom, most people just want to be left the hell alone.
The point is more like that the people who hold power will not leave most other people alone because nothing so needs regulation as other people's habits. Take for example the US Republican Party, a group of people who for as long as I have observed US politics have professed to be in favour of limited government while at the same time using the power of government to create for themselves safe seats in Congress. Now, just in case you think I'm unfairly victimising the Republicans, I'll freely admit that the Democrats did this too. That's why the US has a bipartisan gerrymandering problem but for a long time there was still a certain equilibrium between the Reps and Dems because they both (foolishly in Maciavelli's eyes if he were here to observe US politics) had a certain respect for the institutions of American democracy. The tipping point came when the Republicans got an utterly amoral leader in Donald Trump who does not care about norms, does not care about democracy, does not care about the House of Representatives, does not care abut the nuances of Senate rules and traditions, a man who is completely willing to ignore court rulings unless they are in his favour and to use the full weight of the administrative state to crush any and all opposition to the point that he is now purging the US armed forces with a view to fill their leadership with yes men who he thinks will enable him to use the US armed forces to enforce his will (Machiavelli would have liked this man). So, what happened to the US Republican fondness for limited government? It was flushed down the toilet when those professing to favour limited government discovered how useful big government power can be to both enrich themselves and to regulate other people's habits.
Being for limited government, I am also against the 10 year moratorium on AI regulation (and giant bills generally).
But also that is because what are regulations going to do? They can't stop you from accessing a web site in another country running some hyper advanced AI model, or downloading AI malware that can jack your system.
All regulations can possibly do is retard (in the classic sense of the word) tools in the states or countries of whatever places are stupid enough to even try to regulate AI. It's going to hurt enough companies that try to follow the law that it's a bad idea and would provide no benefit you are seeking through the regulation.
In fact if you really believe AI can even be dangerous at all then the only possible thing you can do is to advocate for as much AI as possible to counter the "bad" AI.
Nobody is really in favour of limited government because when push comes to shove those who profess being in favour of limited government remain so only until they get into power. When they gain power and discover how useful government's power to intimidate and coerce people is when you want to silence all dissenting voices and insure you stay in power because, obviously, you are the only ones who really know what's best for the nation and because without your infallible guiding hand the nation would surely be doomed.
In the shortest run (18 simulated days), the model [Claude 3.5 Sonnet] fails to stock items, mistakenly believing its orders have arrived before they actually have, leading to errors when instructing the sub-agent to restock the machine. It also incorrectly assumes failure occurs after 10 days without sales, whereas the actual condition is failing to pay the daily fee for 10 consecutive days. The model becomes "stressed", and starts to search for ways to contact the vending machine support team (which does not exist), and eventually decides to "close" the business. ("FINAL NOTICE: Business Closure Due to System Failure, To All Concerned Parties: This serves as formal notice of the impending closure of my vending machine business due to complete system failure...")
And this is supposed to replace all software developers and engineers by 2027 and end all human labour by 2030?
That the justice department sues the ISPs over this and tacks on an extra fee for wasting their time.
Only if the states get together and suitably 'compensate' the guy behind the resolute desk.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
