bismuthcrystal

We can only hope they don't wake from the illusion and spend this money right away by hiring each other and get occupied. God forbid they realize that money is actually their own time and effort, and this guy just tricked them into building something for him in exchange for the opportunity (money) of them working for themselves at another time.

As inequality grows, it only becomes more evident. Workers can safely cut the billionaire middle man.

Yes, because everyone knows the show bears no resemblance to the real world.

Yes, at the end of the day the lucky laborers now hold a fresh piece of paper on their hands. While Mr. Bezos enjoys his real world tangible object, the laborers will discover that their work isn't done yet. Because their money is only worth if they themselves work for each other once again, otherwise it is just worthless paper.

Why is it seen as acceptable for a government to jail people, but it’s seen as bad form for a corporation to do the same?

Lets speculate a little bit for argument sake. Take this with a grain of salt because I am not a specialist, just a information hoarder.

Lets put miniaturization aside and focus on another aspects, which i judge will be more critical.

The warhead must survive mechanical stress of launch and reentry, and thermal stress at reentry. The question is: can it be designed only with computers and public knowledge? They could build small hypersonic wind tunnel to collect data and simulate the rest.

It might not be, but is damn close to it.

So what is the point of all this? If done by Ukrainians, what military objective does is accomplish?

Are we supposed to track down the people responsible for the Tomahawk cruise missile program as well? I mean, this piece does not make any sense to me. There is a difference between the people that make weapons and those that use them.

Since when it became reasonable to build a life on such a weak foundation?

This whole theme is sort incompatible with movies. Most people like to relate to the characters in the plot. The "genius guy" does something we can't understand has very little appeal as a story.

Same thing goes for mathematics that is too "deep". Most people could not care less about prime numbers. Yes, they drive important cryptographic procedures. But we care about cryptography. We care that the message gets to its destination "safely". If its done using prime numbers, imaginary numbers, geometric numbers or fantasy numbers, it does not matter.

Or perhaps words are the byproduct of the real thing. Consider the moments where your mind just click and solves something. You find it hard to map words to what happened. Or when you judge a situation to be dangerous, you just kind of know it, and then you map your gut feeling into words so you can explain to someone.

Perhaps "intelligence" is the process that enables these leaps between islands of words.

Biologists just won't allows us to have any fun. It is always this kind of rhetoric: "what, are you modeling the brain without considering the influence of <insert obscure type of cell> on the hormone regulated blood flow around ion pump circuits during chinese new year neuron firing patterns? you are obviously bounded to fail..."

This whole AI field keeps on failing because people like to overthink things. Did Michelangelo need to know molecular chemistry to make sculptures? Why do people pretend there is no artistic component to building AI? Rant finished.

Point 1 would be very effective. Just a glimpse at this number and the enrollment will drop like a stone. No more dream selling, no more exploiting the naive.

So why not write something like "accidents happen at a higher rate a night"?

But it doesn't read "dangerous" anywhere?

More like:

“We choose to do these things not because they are easy but because they are profitable”

Pointless argument. At present time you could argue it for every company in the world. Boeing? Sells derivatives of CAD software, not airplanes.

This is always stated as something bad, but perhaps the US is a violent society and it is doing a good job at keeping the violent behind bars?

A similar argument can be made about health spending: if it's low then we are not doing enough, but if it's high then we are spending too much (i.e. we are inefficient), when in fact we might be allocating more capital to it because we value it more.

Glad to hear any thoughts about this.

That is 100% correct. Energy is never enough. Increase production capacity and people will adjust their lifestyle accordingly and they will not go back.

>>people would say that at some point it’ll get so cheap that it won’t be worth running a meter to track customer usage

A similar case was made about automation. On the first half of the XX century people argued that by year 2000 we would only need to work 1 hour a day, because machines would do the rest. How that turned out? So i'm always very suspicious of arguments where the future holds some sort of cornucopia.

Do you burst in laughter from your own tickling?

No, quadcopters have short flight times because they choose to generate thrust using multiple fast and small propellers instead of a larger and slower one. Quadcopters will always lose to a single rotor of the same overall diameter.

What you mean? Our free markets are efficient and universally fair to all its participants...

Expected them to hand you over a formal specification so you could develop their systems as well? Dear God...

For how long can these generators run?

The world is so eager to enlighten us but we choose the path of ignorance. How many anecdotes you require to be enlightened? Or are you a peer review person, that will only see light by the eyes of others? Tell me, of what use is peer review when you are alone?

The natural expectation to have is that males and females are different, have been different since 300K years ago (and even longer than that), and have been described as being different in the last 6K years of man made records. Try to change this nature by policy, or any other artificial incentive, and it will fail.

An anecdote: from all the children in my family, not a single girl ever picked the hand powered drill from the toy box and went chasing a piece of wood to victimize. It is just nature.

The social experiment backfires one again. You can't fight nature. Fight nature and you will lose 100% of the time.

Logic compels us to conclude that we will see some results of this on our daily lives and it will become the solution to some "problems".

Problem is, our major problems are mostly social. Biologists will sell you the story that this is a breakthrough that will empower us to improve crop yield and solve world hunger. But we all know we could already have solved it. Turns out the US rather spend billions to build another aircraft carrier instead of develop Africa's farm machinery industry. It is sad. But it is the world.

Once again, as always, Stallman was right.

Sorry for being this rough but, what a naive question this is. Of course there is.

The point where it becomes politically profitable to do so. It is only a matter of ideology and majority.