I have a combination of prescriptions that mean that I can't use contact lenses. I see quite a lot of people wearing glasses, and Zenni, Warby Parker, and the other online companies have said they sell a decent number of frames with plano lenses (meaning no prescription), presumably for people who want the look.

Eventually, you won't be able to tell. Someone will come in wearing glasses, and the tech is going to be too small and streamlined. There are also companies working on embedding augmented reality capabilities in contact lenses fed by tiny cameras placed just out of the field of vision. You'd be able to see them only in very specific circumstances. Power feed is a primary challenge right now, but it's probably not an unsolvable problem.

Just looking at the technical side, the cost to the end-user of streaming that much data would be exorbitant. Compressed video or even once-per-second snapshots would eat up all the mobile data, and the battery life would be measured in single digit hours.

No one else is going to risk making a part that one of the big defense contractors has under copyright with an exclusivity lock even if the US government says they can. The smaller ones just can't afford the effects of a lawsuit or the risk of treble damages if they do. That's why forcing a right to repair into the contracts is so important.

Unless you are at the North or South Pole or on top of one of the highest mountains, you are unlikely to be getting an average of one SEU per week in one computer due to cosmic rays. I would attribute most of the errors you see to other causes: marginal timing compatibility, power glitches, an overburdened fan, a leaky microwave nearby, several of these in combination, etc. Cosmic rays sound cool, but most bit flips have more boring causes.

In my case, I saw a lot more errors when I was running compute-intensive jobs: read files, decompress them, run a domain specific compression to text, generate SHA-256, compress using a general purpose compression, in parallel on 24 cores. The location of errors was random like in your system, but the correlation with processor load convinced me it wasn't caused by cosmic rays.

Their developers are supposed to be very competent and careful, but mostly because of culture and the application of development processes that consider lots of potential errors. The default assurance guidance documents (don't call them standards, for rather pedantic reasons) are ED-79 (for Europe because we're taking about Airbus, jointly published as ARP4754 in the US) for aircraft and system design, ARP4761/ED-135 for the accompanying safety analyses, DO-178/ED-12 for software development and DO-254/ED-80 for hardware development. DO-254 gets augmented by AC 20-152A to clarify a number of points. Regulators who certify the system or aircraft also have guidance about what level of involvement they should have in the development process, based on lots of factors, but with most of them boiling down to prior experience of the developers.

You can read online about the objectives in those documents, but flight control systems have potentially catastrophic failure effects, so they need to be developed to DAL A. For transport category aircraft, per AC 25.1309-1B, a catastrophic effect should occur no more often than once per billion operational hours. Catastrophic effects must not result from any single failure; there must be redundancy in the aircraft or system. Normally, the fault tree analysis can only ignore an event if it's two or three orders of magnitude less likely than the overall objective.

Cosmic rays normally cause more than one single-event upset per 10 trillion hours of operation, so normally there should be hardware and software mechanisms to avoid effects from them. In hardware, it might be ECC plus redundant processors with a voting mechanism. For software, it might be what DO-178 calls multiple version dissimilar software independence.

I don't know Airbus itself, and one always has the chance of something like the Boeing 737 MAX MCAS. But typically, companies and regulators do expect these systems to be extremely reliable because the developers are professional and honest: not necessarily super-competent, but super-careful about applying good development practices, having independence in development processes as well as the product, and checking their work with process and quality assurance teams who know what to look for and what to expect.

Try running a one-week memtest86 run, then?

I used to have similar problems (with 4x32 GB sticks), but they went away when I replaced my RAM. Those kinds of problems can also be caused by voltage fluctuations, either from the input power or from load (and memtest86 isn't good at increasing CPU or GPU load) -- even without overcooking. It could be cosmic rays, but it could also be much more local causes.

ClipGPT: "It looks like you're trying to manage public relations in connection with an advertising campaign. Sterling Cooper & Partners is an internationally recognized agency with a long track record of successful campaigns in this area. Can I help you navigate to Link Target?"

Having 20 million cells is entirely orthogonal to your original complaints.

Accepting the use of Excel is not inaccuracy.

Hypothetical future errors are not a reasonable basis for argument about current use.

Your arguments still suck.

How do you reach the conclusion that you did? From TFS:

On its face, that contradicts the idea that Whoever has the "biggest computer" can lock up all of human progress and collect rents for it into the future -- a natural person still needs to conceive of the invention, rather than patenting the output of tool that happens to be the "biggest computer".

The problem here is geekmux, not Excel. I've never heard of somebody saying a spreadsheet does, or should, "track[] to 42 decimal places". I don't even know what you meant by "rounding accuracy that makes GPS timing look like a 19th Century pocket watch" -- I can tell you what kinds of errors exist for different GNSS satellite and receiver clocks, but rounding errors are dwarfed by others.

If you have some technical complaint, be specific about it rather than trying to be cute, because you run a risk of making yourself look stupid rather than clever. There are some well-known problems with Excel's default behavior, like how it aggressively treats text as dates -- but a lot of spreadsheet errors and loss of precision are purely user errors.

It's mostly a contracting issue. Sometimes, if a customer wants full rights to all documentation and design details (or source code or whatever), they have to pay more. If they want exclusive full rights, they have to pay even more. This can be beneficial for some things, not so good for others. If you want to customize your ERP system (SAP or something like that), you'll generally bring in an outside company to do it. You could demand all the source code for everything they did and pay more for it, but if you don't have the necessary expertise on tap to make use of it, it's just throwing money out the window.

The taxpayers paid for the goods along with their research and development.

Not always. Companies do undertake their own research on their own dime, hoping to later sell it to government or other contractors. To take a simple example, a government that purchases a Cessna Citation jet for travel purposes is mostly buying off the shelf. They may customize it with their own communications gear, but they didn't pay for the R&D that went into it. Textron (owner of Cessna and part of RTX) paid for that and is making it up over time with sales of the jet.

A more complicated example is Anduril, which started developing families of weapons on its own and then started getting contracts to further the development process. How much of that should the government own, or at least get access to, if they didn't pay for it?

I agree that the government should be able to fix its own things through contractors of its choosing, and it should get access to all necessary design data. But it's still a contracting issue.

DuckDuckGo's LLM generates this, for example

... (emphases added) and if you click "more" it may change to say that RHD vehicles drive of the *left* side of the road (LHT, which is true).

What does ChatGPT say about a non-profit converting to a for-profit company (by moving essentially all of its operations and assets to a for-profit subsidiary)?

There's a big difference between "necessary for WiFi" and "necessary to do WiFi well". Patents often cover the later rather than the former.