Wow. You are seriously jealous of her. She was never going to pay you any attention. Just get over it.

Are you trying to be obtuse or are you really as clueless as your comment indicates? Do you really think you can build strawmen to attack Sabine and none of her subscribers will be smart enough to see it?

No. She isn't wrong about the fact that most science "breakthroughs" don't pass the smell test these days. She doesn't get everything correct (nobody does and she would be the first to tell you she isn't always right), but she does a good job of playing devil's advocate in a world full of clueless pom pom wielding science cheerleaders who have no idea what they are talking about. A lot of sexist white men don't like the fact that she is much smarter than they are, and a lot of others don't like the fact that she calls them out on their bullshit. She rightly points out that science these days is about getting funding, and if some science happens to occur along the way then that is fine with them too.

I can't tell if you aren't smart enough to understand Sabine and Weinstein, simply don't understand the information available, or have been watching idiots like Sean Carrol, but you are completely off base. String Theory is what has been debunked, and it is a well known fact that scientists have not been doing very much real science for decades. String theory is just maths masturbation and it has set back physics by decades. If you don't believe me ask Roger Penrose. Most of the "scientific breakthroughs" that get reported are total bullshit, and Sabine is an excellent source for understanding why that is often the case.

Go remove the battery cable to do some electrical work on your car and then let us now how that works out for you.

Not by asking Alexa to do it anymore, that's for sure.

You aren't paying for seniors. You are partying the government to replace the money the government stole from seniors.

Why wouldn't I say it may cure cancer? You are obviously painfully unaware of the many benefits AI has already afforded and have no understanding of it at all. This is not to say that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, because nobody knows if that will turn out to be true or not at this point, but if you really think AI is all downside and zero benefits you are woefully ignorant. I personally believe it *might* destroy the human race, but I've been reading a lot of Slashdot comments today so I'm having a hard time deciding if that is a plus or a minus.

That number pales in comparison to the crimes commited by the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, et. Al. Learn some history bootlicker.

Understanding C well would be a reason to learn and use Rust, not a reason to use C. You clearly don't understand software development very well. The right tool for the right job. In 2026 C is sometimes the right tool for some jobs, but certainly not for this job.

Chrome isn't Open Source, but Chromium is the Open Source code that Chrome is based upon.

I am 100% against flock cameras, but that doesn't mean your statement is true. While I agree that typically people will still steal even with flock cameras, if they catch people doing so and they go to jail they are not able to steal more. So while the a priori effect is negligible, that doesn't mean they can't reduce theft. The problem is that even if they do the loss of freedom from mass surveillance is not compensated for by the few cases where it makes things marginally better in a few select cases, especially given that it is abused already and this is documented fact.

There already *are* such limits, and those of us that didn't have the foresight to know they would be ignored should have figured out by now that "strict limits on access" are meaningless. The *only* solution is to make gathering of the data illegal, because once the data has been gathered it can be abused, which is to say it *will* be abused, and *is* being abused.

Those who are willing to sacrifice everybody's freedom for more convenience parking the car they are lucky enough to be able to afford deserve neither freedom nor convenience.

The real danger of discussing an AI kill switch is that it creates and enables the delusion that such a thing is possible. This is absurd. AI is code and is not a single instance, runtime, or platform. Not only is it true that there is no way to implement it in a single model, or a few select models, the Pandora's box has already been opened. An AI kill switch is technologically impossible to implement, and there is no way to universally legislate or enforce legislation even if it was possible.