Interesting, in the USA leases normally do not end with you owning the item. A typical house lease ends with you moving out or “extending” the lease for another month (or several), or getting another year’s lease frequently at a newer higher price. A car lease tends to have a buy out clause where you can purchase the car for a set price which normally ends up being above the “blue book” value at that time (the car manufacturer and bank tend to have better guesses about that value then the lessor, not that they negotiate much anyway), although you can frequently also extend a car lease a month at a time if for eample you are buying a new car from the same manufacturer and it is in high demand or even not quite out next. Not all car leases can be bought out (Tesla apparently does not have a buy out clause, they take 100% of the old ones back). Of those that can be bought out though a pretty low percentage are.

This is why, when I use AIs, I try to use 5 or 6 that operate in sufficiently distinct ways and are trained by different people with different data sets. If all of them agree, when instructed specifically to find defects, that something is valid/good, then I can be reasonably confident that this conclusion isn't a result of a specific defect in training or process but has some level of path-independence.

This does NOT mean that the conclusion actually is correct, it just means that a NN will likely reach the conclusion that it is regardless of any of the mechanisms involved.

I have developed 5 different engineering projects this way. None of them have actually been examined by a real engineer yet. I would love to have a real engineer look at them, precisely because this will give you detailed insights into what an AI system actually can do and what it can't.

You are absolutely right, and the likely response by said officials will be "oops, have a scandal to divert your attention".

And Ukraine is only a problem area because those same officials don't take anything seriously unless it impacts their promotion prospects.

*has terrifying flashbacks to the recentish Celestial Toymaker episode.

If that were meaningful, studies wouldn't show that hedge fund managers only make a profit around 1/3 of the time. If the people who actually work in the industry and know every aspect of it better than I know machine code or C still can't get anything useful out of their work 2/3rds of the time, then the theory simply isn't important.

You could almost say there's a stateless protocol.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Flivingwage.mit.edu%2Fmet...

Typical annual salary, according to MIT's Living Wage Calculator for the NYC Metro, is $84,860.

Poverty wage is $7.52/hr (no kids) and minimum wage is $15.50 which, according to the calculator, should cover 1 adult with 3 kids.

The Brearley School, regarded as the best private school for girls in the nation and charging around $70K, is a non-profit.

What shareholders?

A cargo plane can crash a maximum of once and can carry hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of packages. A drone carries one. Furthermore, a cargo plane will move from hub to hub, carrying cargo in each flight. A drone must go in both directions for that one package.

So whilst I technically agree with you, if an aircraft can carry N times as much as a drone, then the drone MUST be 2N times as reliable as an aircraft to be considered equal.

What he is, is a liar and master stock manipulator. That's all this is. No need to look for any science in it, or to dig any further (no regolith joke implied).

You didn't quite get the joke. "No Nazi ever called me racist"... because they wouldn't, would they?

Because it has sick drumming, dude!

Ooooh, this should be interesting.

Trump, et al, don't consider proof to be all that important, all that matters is publicity, headlines, and transfer of more power to Trump personally.

The courts will likely take a very different view. Unless hard evidence (something Trump has never been able to supply in any court case, either instigated by him or against him), terrorism charges won't survive. But, of course, Trump isn't interested in winning cases like this, he's interested in playing victim and demanding more power.

True, but conditionally.

Remember the Firestone/Bridgestone tyre scandal, when the company got hauled into Senate hearings because SUVs kept rolling? Remember the Boeing scandal, when their aircraft would plunge out the sky? If a product is operated when known to be defective, your immunity in the case of accidents shrinks.

So it's going to depend on just how safe Amazon drones are. If they're normally safe and reliable, Amazon is safe. If, however, Amazon drones are well-known to lose control under normal and expected conditions, then the picture changes sharply.

As of now, we (the regular plebs) don't know which of those two cases it is. We should not second-guess in either direction, but rather acknowledge that it hinges entirely on what anyone finds out.

Amazon is working on the repairs?

If they can't fly a drone without turning it into a weapon of mass destruction, I'm not entirely convinced I'd feel safe with them a thousand miles of fresh bricks and just-mixed mortar. Always assuming that that's what was delivered. The robots go to a specific coordinate in a warehouse, not a specific product, and there's plenty of bogus stuff sold via Amazon stores.

If I were in that building, I would be very very scared to hear Amazon was repairing it.