*That* depends on the movie. Some movies NEED to be long, others need to be cut. But making each movie the same length is a really bad idea. (E.g. I saw a version of War and Peace that was so long it ran in two days. It didn't need to be cut, but the break was necessary.)

Secretary of War is a more accurate description. I agree that legally it's Secretary of Defense, but that has always been a misnomer.

Generating bad pathogens is quite plausible. Generating narrowly targeted ones that will stay narrowly targeted is currently implausible, and probably will remain so until well after the singularity. It would require designing genomes that were strongly error correcting. Elephants and naked mole rats do a reasonable job of that, but I don't think it's plausible for bacteria.

We can't do that yet, and may never be able to be that specific. Trying to do it, however, could be exceedingly dangerous.

N.B.: All bacteria and viruses have a very high mutation rate.

They may not be, but you can bet that SOMEONE is.

Over evolutionary time, starvation was a major killer. It may be rare today (comparatively), but it used to be a real threat. Even today it's not insignificant. And it directly selects for the ability to eat whatever's available.

I think it's more "environmentally induced epigenetic modifications", which *are* a real thing, and sometimes can be inherited...but I don't think inheritance is needed for this argument, as the environment has kept chaning in the same direction. I.e. more fine muscle movement in the upper body, less massive physical effort.

It depends on how you define the term. I tend to consider any choice an act of reasoning (including a simple if test). I know that most people have a different definition, but I can rarely get them to define what they mean by the term. I tend to suspect it's an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing.

Are they not forgotten now? I never heard of them before this story.

Umnnh...but I think the programs that do that are different programs than the ones that understand source code. (Well, not *that* much different, but trained on a massively different data set.)

FWIW, I think understanding binary code is probably an easier problem for an AI than understanding source code, but it *does* require different training.

You could be right, but my take was that it was made by a manager who had no idea. Of course, they could both be true.

FWIW, the albums I play are played via computer, and I edit out any songs I don't want. If they put in some stuff I don't want, I just don't play it. I feel like I'm paying for the CD, not the songs. They never fill the CD, so if they include extra stuff, I just don't care.

FWIW, this is a lot better than LPs were, where you basically had to live with the selection they chose.

FWIW, my "legal free offerings" are purchased CDs. I don't know how many feel the way I do, but I don't buy "temporary goods" unless you count food and medicine...and they come with stated expiration dates.

If you don't know how to invest in AI, just ask a Chatbot for advice.

I hadn't realized that was an ad...actually, I hadn't noticed it until you mentioned it. At least the MongoDB as has gotten less obnoxious. (I though MongoDB was free software, but maybe all the entries in the Debian repository are for drivers or interfaces.