If you read the linked blog post in TFA, it's pretty clear that it was merely a matter of manpower and shouldn't be viewed as suspicious.

It says right in the summary, "each one was validated by either a member of Anthropic's team or an outside security researcher".

While you normally get less range from sodium-ion, it balances out the low-temperature discharge problem. As such, while you sacrifice peak range, you get a more stable stable year-round range in environments prone to very cold weather. If integrated correctly, it could also act as a bulkhead against thermal runaway destroying the entire battery pack. However, solid state lithium-ion batteries are on the horizon (2030-ish) so that's not a huge issue.

Regardless, sodium-ion battery technology needs to be developed further because we need all the battery chemistries we can get. Relying on any single battery chemistry is a way of creating an economic single point of failure which is ripe for exploitation.

All your posts are bizarre and absurdly long. Are you a bot? I could totally see AI taking the role of dipshit troll on slashdot. Like... who the fuck says "Internet 1.0"?

The same way drug dealers do. "I didn't force them to use it".

While you normally get less range from sodium-ion, it balances out the low-temperature discharge problem. As such, while you sacrifice peak range, you get a more stable stable year-round range in environments prone to very cold weather. If integrated correctly, it could also act as a bulkhead against thermal runaway destroying the entire battery pack. However, solid state lithium-ion batteries are on the horizon so that's not a huge issue.

Regardless, sodium-ion battery technology needs to be developed further because we need all the battery chemistries we can get.

The EU is exactly right about the design but they are missing that many websites and phone applications are like this. You need only look at which websites/software companies have hired neuroscientists to identify the worst offenders.

Streaming services optimize their profits by accounting for the amount of copyright infringement that is a result of their higher prices. Therefore, the fact that "everyone" is not paying for their content is an acceptable part of their business plan. If they have miscalculated then that's on them, not me.

Not exactly. I'm of the mind that if you willfully retain information on individuals then you should be legally responsible for properly controlling it. If you lose control of the information then you are liable. This is not a punishment it is a safeguard against chronic under-investment in security. If a company know that losing control of personal information they gathered could ruin them then one of three things will occur:

1. They will no longer retain more information then absolutely necessary.
2. They will do absolutely everything in their power to ensure that information is kept secure.
3. They will eventually go out of business for taking insufficient care of personal information.

The net result of this is that the pipeline of private information being pumped into the black market will be drastically reduced.

No, I fully understand that it can happen to many businesses and that is a risk. However, when your business is personal information, then that changes things radically. The number of safeguards that are in place need to be radically increased and mandatory security audits should be part of the process.

It's not harder than it looks, it's more expensive than the alternative which is why it's not done. This is turn is why holding personal information should come with a financial risk.

Right now, security isn't even a high priority to companies and that is why companies are regularly breached.

"Labor shortage" is a euphemism for "we don't pay our workers enough". Raise their pay and you will have more workers.

"You can bring a horse to water... but if it's fucking idiot then it'll just die of thirst claiming there is no water."

The problem is I already have. You can bring a horse to water... but if it's fucking idiot then it'll just die of thirst claiming there is no water.

That's actually a very simple question: there is far less risk involved. The bigger problem with driving is pedestrians. It may seem easy to not hit people but that's not the case. Having an autonomous car hit someone at low speed is a serious problem for a company. Have an loaded truck/bus hit someone at low speed is typically fatal and a surefire way to get your vehicles banned.

In sum, the problem is not navigating the route, it's doing it without killing people and trucks/busses are far more likely to kill people.