Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.

So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.

That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.

AI strongly favors some phrases over others, though. I have a Google news watch on the name "Gamesurge", and for 15+ years Google has matched that against news that uses phrases like "late-game surge". This year, the frequency of those hits has gone up by about an order of magnitude. I don't think that was organic in origin.

It's like if you suddenly had a zillion people asking "doubts" about how to do the needful: you could be pretty sure which dialect of English influenced their word choices.

no problem.

It's quaint that you think the United States is still a republic. It's a monarchy, and Trump's handlers are likely moving currently to make sure that when Vance succeeds him, that the Executive branch and a Congress that will be, through the use of naked force if necessary, remain filled with Republican paper tigers to complement the paper tigers in the Supreme Court, settles into the oligarchy the Framers always really intended it to be. The military will largely be used to recreate the American hemispheric hegemony. The National Guard and ICE will be used as foot soldiers within the US to "secure" elections.

The morons that elected that diseased wicked and demented man have destroyed whatever the hell America was. As a Canadian, I can only hope we can withstand this hemispheric dominance and the raiding of our natural resources to feed the perverse desires of the child molesters, rapists, racists and psychopaths that have already taken control of the US.

Doubtless, I will be downvoted by the remaining MAGA crowd here. You know, the guys that pretended they refused to vote Democrat because Bernie wasn't made leader, but are to a man a pack of Brown Shirts eagerly awaiting the time when they imagine they can take part in the defenestration of American society.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

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.

Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.

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?"

Win9x and Win2k (and the other NT descendants) are fundamentally different operating systems. In general, NT had a much more robust kernel, so system panics were and remain mainly hardware issues, or, particularly in the old days, dodgy drivers (which is just another form of hardware issue). I've seen plenty of panics on *nix systems and Windows systems, and I'd say probably 90-95% were all hardware failures, mainly RAM, but on a few occasions something wrong with the CPU itself or with other critical hardware like storage device hardware. There were quite a few very iffy IDE cards back in the day.

The other category of failure, various kinds of memory overruns, have all but disappeared now as memory management, both on the silicon and in kernels, have radically improved. So I'd say these are pretty much extinct, except maybe in some very edge cases, where I'd argue someone is disabling protections or breaking rules to eke out some imagined extra benefit.

Perhaps you should just grow up.

That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.

That's what I just said.

Here's where the summary goes wrong:

Artificial Intelligence is in fact many kinds of technologies. People conflate LLMs with the whole thing because its the first kind of AI that an average person with no technical knowledge could use after a fashion.

But nobody is going to design a new rocket engine in ChatGPT. They're going to use some other kind of AI that work on problems on processes that the average person can't even conceive of -- like design optimization where there are potentially hundreds of parameters to tweak. Some of the underlying technology may have similarities -- like "neural nets" , which are just collections of mathematical matrices that encoded likelihoods underneath, not realistic models of biological neural systems. It shouldn't be surprising that a collection of matrices containing parameters describing weighted relations between features should have a wide variety of applications. That's just math; it's just sexier to call it "AI".