The situation was worse than I thought. According to the AAIB report, they tested the material and found the glass transition temperature to be about 53C, so the jackass printed it in PLA.

Also, since it's Poly Lactic Acid, our metabolism is already well equipped to deal with the breakdown product.

It's great for things that will be indoors at room temperature. I made a snap-on camera mount for my monitor that has held up great. But if it was a dash mount, it would need to be PETG or CF-PA6 to not sag in the summer.

Getting their jobs sent to American AI won't be noticeably better for American workers than getting their jobs sent to Chinese AIs.

According to an AAIB Field Investigation report (pg. 4), two samples from the intake were tested and found to have a glass transition temperature of 54.0C and 52.8C

So some idiot printed them in PLA. PLA is great but is very much NOT temperature resistant. It has been known to sag in a hot car.

Now look at the ratio of human driven cars vs. Waymo cars.

The problem was using a cheap substitute part. I'm guessing an injection molded ABS part would also have failed in that scenario.

CF-ABS is NOT like fiberglass at all. The CF is chopped into fine bits. They lend some stiffness at room temperature but not strength to the part. Certainly the carbon fiber bits don't lend any heat resistance.

That's why I suggest a mitigation to the increases for industry based on local employment. Data centers employ very few people per-Killowatt and so contribute a lot less to the local economy compared to those other industries.

It would make sense in conjunction with an employment based mitigation. Data centers employ very few people once operational (they're not called lights-out facilities for nothing), so no mitigation. Major manufacturer provides many steady jobs, more mitigation for them.

Of course, things get complicated. There are mini data centers being set up in people's back yards where the waste heat warms the home owners house. That doesn't employ a lot of people but gets effectively double use of the energy for at least a good part of the year, offsetting other energy use, so it should see some form of mitigation as well.

The bigger question though is how long until the data centers are abandoned? The big AI companies and their investors are operating at a loss as they jocky for market share and train ever larger models. But will people actually find the AI useful enough to pay for it once the investors start demanding their ROI? Will managers come to realize that they might be better off hiring people suffering schizophrenia with frequent psychotic episodes?

I like your follow up comment, but please don't strawman me. I replied to your assertion of " the marketing of this product implies to a user that your images are never at risk of being hacked", and i just replied that it has to always be decrypted somewhere, and that somewhere can be compromised. So this isn't the property of any E2E encryption.

End to end encryption, for a toilet? Frankny I do not want a TOILET to connect me "end-to-end" with anybody. They're doing it wrong.

Time to pull up the sheet on IOT. Not only has it gone up it's own backside, now it's trying to go up ours too.

How about "hit", the most common word used to express the concept.

And with other types of E2E encryption like for example whatsapp messages, the person you sent them to has them on his phone, that can get hacked?

It all gets decrypted somewhere, and that somewhere can get hacked, that's always true.

This complaint makes no sense.

And is this corroberated anywhere that this is now the common definition?
I get we use E2E encryption in the context of whatsapp to have a specific meaning there, but since when does that mean that this is the only meaning?
And how can it even be unclear in this case? you actively pay the company monthly to analyze your data, so yes, they have access to it. duh??
I still don't see it honestly....

It just seems he imagined E2E only meaning user -> user encryption, and that this case is thus somehow unclear. While it's like the most clear case possible of E2E encryption where the other end is not another user.

No, it means only the sender, and the intended receiver can access the data.
For a service like this, the intended receiver is obviously the company you pay monthly to process the data. Sounds like E2E encryption to me.

Of course, for a service where you exchange data between users, the point is that the company can't read the messages, but that's so obviously not the case here.