The command structure checked and double-checked and determined their information was flawed.

According to the story, there were already aircraft en route to board the ship. Do you think this is how the US military actually operates? Launches aircraft to board a Chinese ship, and only while they're en route midair do they bother to double check?

Just to elaborate on the "actual details" flags:

1) What ship? This isn't exactly sensitive information - both the US and China know it - and there were supposedly already aircraft en route to board it. Leaving that out means that nobody can check ship traffic or flight records to see if these claims are actually plausible.

2) What AI? Is this some private military tool like Maven, or is it, like, say, ChatGPT?

3) They're saying that the analyst fed intelligence related to the ship’s cargo manifest and the AI "hallucinated" that it was carrying nuclear weapons. If you're feeding it intelligence, asking for a conclusion, and it reaches a conclusion, but that conclusion is wrong, that's not a "hallucination", that's just a wrong conclusion. And exactly how difficult was this analysis? Are we talking "there's a no-smoking sign on the deck" -> "Oh, that's surely because of nukes!", or are we talking "It's setting off all our geiger counters and there's audio of the captain repeatedly talking about "Héwqì"" -> "Sounds like good evidence for nukes!"

4) Is this actually how the US military operates? They get one report, they launch an airborne boarding operation, but *then* decide to redo the analysis while the birds are en route to their target? Really?

This whole anonymously-sourced story is just throwing off red flags for me left and right. I'm sure something happened, but I really doubt it's fully matching the portrayal.

And of course, what's being described (with a serious paucity of actual details, throwing off all my Hype Story red flags) is not only not WW3, it's not the first time it's happened

Because unlike software-based solutions, it can successfully hide the information from the user (barring any hardware vulnerabilities). The problem isn't just that hidden information can exist on the system, the problem is that the root user can't access the information. Being able to access the information is what made DRM crackable. Without that, it could be possible to make a DRM system that actually works, which would be the worst invention in the history of computing. If the user can clear it but not see it, that does nothing to make that less viable.

Say more; be specific.

What is missing or broken?

Why isn't EU sponsoring specific features and fixes it needs?

Or assign some of their own developers to submit pull requests.

Or hire *some Europeans* who are unemployed because their war is killing industry.

Let's hear from their project manager instead of faceless wankers and the people responsible for sales.

No strawman, it happens almost every time I express concern at the possibility of TPM enabling a working DRM system.

Anyone care to once again reassure me how TPM, a system for hiding information from a computer's user regardless of privilege level, can't be used for DRM again?

The propagandists say that their competitors confuse people and they won't believe the propaganda anymore.

The Horror, the Horror.

We'd all be trillionaires if we could see that far into the future with sufficient clarity.

Consider whether a Depopulationist psyop is more or less likely than that The End Times have finally come (unlike the previous thousand pronouncements).

People who are anxious and scared are easy to control. Have a look back at Al Gore's slide deck and see how much they really knew.

Though Competitive Advantage should not be discounted as a very real driver of evolutionary fitness.

The poorest people in the world somehow manage to not extinct their 4B-yr old germ line.

Many Westerners have personal preferences greater than familial survival. It's been trained into them but only in times of mass starvation has this ever happened before in history.

Census by the founders includes *every person* not just citizens. Disagree with the founding fathers on that one eh? Also there is an easy thing to do with people who are illegal, just make them legal. Reagan knew there isnt a practical alternative and now a new generation will have to learn that.

Nope....I liked Reagan a LOT, but he fucked up really badly on that one thing allowing an amnesty....caused a rush on the border...Hey everyone isn't perfect and he fucked that one.

Fuck legalizing them....send them all back and try to come in the legal way. I'm not against streamlining and reforming our immigration system to legally come here, but even with that we should be choosy about who we let in, only those that will benefit the US and show they will be likely to meld into the melting pot and become US citizens.

We need to set up system around work that will pretty much lock out ANY person here that is not here legally....I hate the thought of a national ID, but if something similar to it had to be in place to root out all the illegals, make it impossible to work and live here, I'd be for it.

And maybe we need to amend the constitution and ONLY count citizens and ONLY allow most things for citizens....let's make it as unattractive and difficult as possible for illegal immigrants.

I use a bluetooth page turner pedal for sheet music.

I think it was $14 for two buttons. Maybe there's a third, I only ever use forward and back.

$40 is wild.

Sorry about that!

Light bulbs are very small things; the energy that goes into making them is likewise very small, regardless of type. The electricity an incandescent bulb burns is, by contrast, not at all small. You also have to replace the incandescent bulb far more often.

There's all sorts of exhaustive analyses out there, but the TL/DR is:

One incandescent bulb takes ~1-1,5kWh to manufacture and lasts ~1000 hours
One LED bulb takes 8-20kWh to manufacture and lasts ~25000 hours (commonly modern home construction doesn't even use lightbulb sockets anymore; the fixtures are designed to not need "bulb replacements")

So even on manufacturing, the LED bulb wins because it's up against 25 incandescent bulbs. But that's all trivial, because:

60W × 25000h = 1500 kWh
9W * 25000h = 225kWh

So a few extra or fewer kilowatt hours in manufacturing is irrelevant. It's totally dominated by usage energy.

Incandescent only wins one category: disposal (it's just glass and a little metal, you can just throw it in the trash; LED is e-waste and gets recycled). But in both cases, you're talking tenths of a percent of lifetime energy usage.