There are plenty of crappy scripting languages out there. Why did Python rise to dominance over AppleScript and Visual Basic and bash and MS-DOS .bat files and Perl and Tcl and all the rest?

I suggest that it's because Python is significantly less crappy than its competition.

Seems like not-enough-people is a relatively straightforward problem to solve, if your country isn't completely awful. You just invite some immigrants in, and presto, you've got more people. There are plenty of people around the world looking for stable, decent places to live, so sourcing shouldn't be a problem.

Too-many-people is a much trickier problem, since nobody wants to be voted off the island.

Soon it will be just like over-the-air TV, except you're paying Amazon $180/year for the privilege of watching their ads.

You're missing the point.

When you're analyzing a market or demographic segment, you can't make a sales pitch for a particular company or product. You don't care about the individual products. It's a bigger question about how the groups, classes, or properties interact and the outcomes of that interaction.

In this particular case, I have questions about the "larger employment". Is it domestic or foreign employment, and how do those jobs compare to the median wages locally?

If that employment is larger domestically and offering equivalent wages, then the native-immigrant is objectively improving the economy of the host country. On the other hand, if the employment is largely foreign or offers subpar compensation, then there is little benefit to the host nation.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full paper, so I can't see if it addresses the issues that matter to the working class. The headline/conclusion only matters to professional investors.

I think they are going for "reduced waiting time" and "more consistent high quality preparation", with an option for "cheaper prices" at some point (if they feel they must). It's not clear that AI will actually provide any of those things, but that's the goal.

The song will advise you to "share and enjoy", and the beverage will be almost (but not quite) entirely unlike the one you wanted.

Depends on how clearly written the instructions are. Even when the instructions are correct and unambiguous, language that is well-defined to someone with experience is often inscrutable to the newbie. (e.g. have you ever been following a recipe that tells you to "fold in" an ingredient and had to figure out exactly what "folding in" is supposed to consist of in that context?)

Traditionally your newbie barista would ask their co-worker at that point, so I'm not sure that having an AI on-hand provides much benefit unless it's faster and/or more accurate than getting a co-worker's attention would be. If it turns out not to be helpful, it will go away quickly enough.

... and for good reason. Difficult projects are risky and expensive, and if they don't work on the first try, the voters blame the politician and then very soon afterwards he isn't a politician anymore (or at least, not an employed one). Even if they do succeed, the politician will get blamed if they turn out to be more expensive than predicted (which they always do, because that's the nature of difficult projects).

The "safe" way to do it is leave the old system in place and running, and install the new system next to it. Let them both run simultaneously for an extended period of time, with the old system still in charge and the new system running and computing results, but its results aren't actually controlling anything; they are only recorded to verify that its behavior is always the same as the old system given the same inputs.

Once you've thoroughly tested and debugged the behavior of the new system that way, you flip the switch so that now the new system is in control and the old system is merely having its results recorded. Let the system run that way for a period of time; if anything goes wrong you can always flip the switch back again. If nothing goes wrong, you can either leave the old system in place as an emergency backup (for as long as it lasts), or decommission it.

This logic made a lot of sense on the original Mac 9" screen. It makes less sense on a modern Mac with multiple large monitors, where the distance between your window's content and the menu bar can be significant, and your mouse may move up past the the menu bar and into the screen "above" if you aren't careful.

Yes, excess energy that the grid can't accept should be stored for later use when possible, or perhaps used to generate hydrogen (or synthesize gasoline or whatever fuel is most appropriate) for resale.

Being able to code without having to look away from the screen whenever you need to press a key seems like a big win for efficiency to me. Every time you look away from the screen, you have to relocate your text-line of interest again when you look back; that may take only half a second, but if you're doing it 10 times a minute, those half-seconds add up.

Everyone here is reading the comments page of a Slashdot article, speculating about what will or won't happen at an upcoming Apple WWDC.

I think we can take 'incredibly dull lives' as a given.

That seems like short-term thinking. A better approach would be to figure out how to do the future-prediction optimizations in ways that malware cannot exploit, so we can reap the benefits of the optimizations.

Hell, what stops one of these rich people from using his money to take care of those who need it now? The only one who tries is Gates, and he gets routinely villified for trying.

Looking forward to the commercial starring Spinal Tap.