and also frequently showed up where she was, including her gym, a Smoothie King and a Walmart earlier this month...

This is why the Oxford comma is used.

We all know that it's not entrapment as long as the police get a camera crew to entrap for them. A popular TV show was based on exploitation of that.

Don't know what entrapment is, do ya? Here's a hint: if the criminals were going to commit the act anyway, it's not entrapment.

I always figured that people who genuinely believed their employers were likely to kill literally everybody in the near future might burn down a bit more than that, but so far it's mostly been tweets

Having to poke through an about: page and find the thing to toggle to turn off this specific AI feature but not that one, and knowing they'd change it on you a couple of releases later, never filled me with confidence.

One switch in a readily discoverable location in the settings menu and it's all gone? Just the job, killed it now on the laptop and the mobile both.

You literally post this on every article about Firefox. Aren't you tired yet? I have replied numerous times that they are *NEVER* going to do that. And then I pointed you to using policies, which will disable updates.

Which is why I don't bother with surveys from company. If they're not going to listen to their customers, why bother doing the survey?

Having to create a policy is not the same as a simple checkbox to disable something.

One would think if customers keep complaining about something that a company would look into changing it. Such as people who complained at having to use a screen in their car to change a/c or temperature or something simple. Car manufacturers went back and put buttons and knobs in to make things easier.

Apparently Mozilla isn't interested in simple. Like so many other companies, the object is to make things as complicated, convoluted, and inconvenient as possible.

For all they keep doing, the one thing they can't seem to do is make a checkbox to stop being harassed about updates. Apparently there is no way to do to this. It's much too complicated for them to figure out.

Perhaps they should put out a notice asking if anyone has the skills to create the checkbox and make it work.

Reminds me of the scene in War Games where Joshua is playing the various games over and over and over:

Jennifer: What is it doing?

David Lightman: It's learning.

Get back to talking about how we're whooping Iran's ass at no cost to oursel-- SHUT UP, I SAID NO COST!!!!1

You won't see this on the Fox tabloid, but the acting Navy Secretary admitted at a Congressional hearing that Iran "blew the hell" out of a naval base in Bahrain such that the USS Abraham Lincoln (sound familiar?) couldn't dock for resupply.

So yeah. Whooping Iran's ass at no cost.

Kids are expected to sit in class for six hours a day then go home and potentially do homework for an hour or two.

The difference is, there are breaks in those six hours. You're in class for 55 minutes, then you get up and walk to your next class, rinse and repeat. Depending on your schedule, breaks could even be longer. You get up and move about. You're not stuck in the same chair for six hours.

Don't forget Paxton gave a lenient sentence to Adam Hoffman who raped a friend's kid for over three years.

No, there was no "empty space" around it. The space itself expanded in the cosmic inflation, per current theory.

Which I've always hated because it makes no sense. If space itself inflated, what did it inflate into? It's illogical, from any perspective, to say the universe was a speck of energy that suddenly expanded to create itself. If it expanded, it had to expand into something. You can't create yourself. If you say that, then all you've done is recreate, "In the beginning ..."

This is why they're so keen on robots. They want guards whose loyalty they can really count on when the mob shows up with a guillotine.

That one might surrender and meekly accept their likely death at the hands of the machine, I can believe. But all of them? This isn't the first such claim we've heard about AI danger.

I believe that Yudkowsky believes what he says he believes, for example. He says shut them all down worldwide, immediately, and if there are rogue nations who don't go along with it then launch air strikes on their data centres - even against a nuclear state. He said that three years ago. That's the thinking of a man who believes it's genuinely likely that the machines will kill us all in the near future.

And this is still considered extremist lunacy. That tells me the rest of them don't believe what he does.

The general public should care because there's apparently a good chance these machines are going to kill them all, very soon.

They don't care because they don't believe that.

When some AI agent of theirs, trying to meet a developer's benchmark test, eventually hacks the power grid or the water supply to a metropolis to help itself to a way around a sandbox environment, then the general public will care. And when that happens they may well drag AI industry CEOs and researchers out of their beds to the nearest lamp-post.

> approximately eight hundred billion ... oops, that's eight hundred million, of course. Ten percent probability, times the current population of the Earth. The expected consequences of allowing the AI industry to continue their work, according to people who are oddly calm about the prospect.