Just enact a token tax on AI compute. Make it large enough to easily fund UBI for all the people thrown out of work and enough to subsidize pebble bed reactors at every data center.

Microsoft, like most anyone making money off of computers these days, wants you on a subscription model that requires you to constantly send telemetry to their servers so they can rape your privacy for profit. They don't want you buying and using a product until something better comes out, they want that sweet recurring monthly income. It's evil.

Stupid, however, is expecting a company to sell you a product and then support it forever for free. The only reason Microsoft has to support Windows 10 past what they advertise as its lifetime is to prevent their product from becoming a PR embarrassment and impairing their ability to sell more software. Doing that for too long means lots of extra expense with no additional profit, and that's how businesses fail.

TL;DR - MS evil, lawsuit stupid.

The numbers before were accurate, they just weren't the best metrics. The job numbers stop reporting you if you aren't actively looking for a job. Which means long term unemployed people aren't counted. There is sense to that for some groups (retired, disabled and unable to work), but not for people who are healthy enough to be in the job market and can't afford to do nothing.

The inflation numbers were accurate, but they didn't include housing. Which makes CPI kind of useless, as housing is the biggest item in most people's budget.

That being said, while the metrics were flawed, they were accurate measurements by and large. So one could rely on them and find insights as long as you keep in mind what they don't track.From now on though- when an incredibly political person known for his willingness to make shit up (including outright lies on inflation) removes the head of the bureau creating the numbers and replaces them with someone who will give him numbers he wants? Yeah, from now on they're untrustworthy.

Modeling has always been about some idealized image that doesn't represent real people in any reasonable way. They start with exceptionally attractive people and then use makeup, lighting, and lens effects to make them look even better. And when that's not enough, in more recent times they've been using Photoshop.

The human model has been holding the artists back from the completely artificial image they've always been pursuing.

It's not irrelevant. To understand what the program is actually doing and how the computers actually work, you need to understand pointers. They aren't necessary in day to day work, but not understanding how they work will lead to subtle bugs.

If it has to check in with a company's servers to function, they WILL either cease support or come after your wallet at some point.

Go with Home Assistant for control and devices that don't need to be connected to the Internet to work. Z-Wave, Zigbee and 433MHz are the things you should look for first before falling back to WiFi devices.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Their extraordinary claim was that somehow known chemistry was wrong. Their extraordinary evidence was 'belief', because the flaws in their experiment prevented any rational conclusion.

Retraction was the correct move.

That would be an interesting law to pass: You can only publish a WARN list if the CEO is on it....

Translation, I want a $.25 bump in my stock options to pay for my wife's haircuts, so you need to lose your job.

I don't believe the US currently has the capacity to make a laptop from scratch, even at 20% above Apple pricing. Assemble yes, but manufacture no. If it's possible at all, whatever corners are cut will ensure it's unusable as a computing device.

It's also far more likely this is some kind of investment scam than an actual legitimate business plan.

It had humor, it had a plot, it didn't end with a big CGI 'vs nega' crapfest fight.

It was good enough for me to say that it was an improvement over simply more of the same.

The law is unconstitutional, as other similar laws have been found in the past. It hasn't been removed from the books only because nobody has been charged for it in a century, thus nobody has had a chance to challenge it on those grounds. The exception is for the military, which has the UMC which is allowed to have stricter restrictions on behavior.

YEah, none of this will happen. Let's assume they don't have a prenup (in which case the settlement of assets is dictated by that). The wife would get 50% of what was generated during their marriage at best. That may include the house, but its value would be subtracted from what she got in cash. Alimony... depends on a lot of circumstances, but it's more rare and generally a limited time. Plus we have no idea what the wife's income is, she may make as much or more.

Will he get a job again? Of course he will. Probably not as a CEO in the near term, but he'll absolutely get jobs where he isn't a visible presence for the company. And in a few years the CEO jobs will open again, because nobody is going to give a fuck a year from now.

As for going to jail- no. If the alimony (which is unlikely to exist) does exist and it is set high, he goes back to court to get it lowered. Because alimony is based on your income (with a few exceptions for example purposefully staying unemployed). Given that he was just publicly fired, his current income potential is very low, so any alimony would be matchingly low. There are formulas for these things.

So in other words, your just spouting misogynistic bullshit.

insightful

No, it's not. Thinking requires understanding. Machines are incapable of doing that. They can recombine new facts, but they cannot and will never be able to think.