To me, it's simple redundancy. One fails or becomes unreliable for any reason, there's two other methods to back it up. Should the more natural processes prove unreliable, coal is the backup. Makes simple economic sense to me.

I'm going to throw this out there - doesn't this strike anyone as a strange response, as if there's more to this network and relationship than meets the eye? Are there any conspiracy theories out there about this organization and this network?

Why does this seem like it's a plot straight out of the first "Matrix" movie?

To a "Climate Scientist" this is proof of global warming. To everyone else. This is evidence of increased tourism and transient traffic. I'm NOT siding with scientists on this one.

I stopped having any faith in the reliability of media, entirely, about 7 years ago. To me, there is no such thing as 'credible sources' on the internet, there are simply sources and information to consider. This is the reality most people are going to have to face over the next 5 years, that there's very. very good reason not to trust what you currently believe is a trusted source - as your mind is what's of interest to them, not presenting reliable information.

You see Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care. It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my a$$ off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation? And here's another thing, I have eight different bosses right now. Eight, Bob. So that means when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.

So entire videos are now being deepfaked. Somehow, they think that noise encoding won't be deepfaked along with it? Strange. Almost as if the researchers don't understand what a deepfake is.

Even AI music has an artist generating and an origin story - whether that's the programmer who algorithmically created the AI to begin with or it's the individual who originated the work. You don't sound elitist, you come across as derogatory and analytically judgmental when the origin story of something isn't relatable to you. I myself as a world traveler, for instance - frequently find myself drawn to foreign music. I don't need to know the language or the words being spoken, when I hear an interesting tune - something that's creatively unique - it's the melody I'm drawn to. Not the origin story of the song and its artist. I think the thing you're struggling with is - you're so analytical that you're looking for meaning in music. When for most of us. We don't need that meaning. When it's there, sure, it can be interesting, but it doesn't have to be there for most people to enjoy it. This doesn't make them / us not music lovers. It just makes you purely analytical and judgmental against those who are not.

To me, the 'origin story' of the music I enjoy doesn't matter and never has. Good music is good music regardless of the origin story. This desire by so called 'music insiders' to place labels warning of the AI origin story just goes to show how out of touch 'music insiders' have been to their consumers.

This seems strangely like self-validating work. Just saying. In short, like the originator of this thought did well in IQ tests but they feel they aren't being appreciated enough for the work they do. So they do a study that says "You should appreciate me and my opinions more" and point to their research that validates their belief. Under the covers. This is what most science is nowadays. Not real, objective science. But self-validating science. Stroke my tiny, fragile ego science. We deserve better.

Gunn has long symbolized someone who is out of touch with what viewers actually want, which is what makes him SUCH an odd fit for helm of DCU film content. It's like - he understands comics and superheroes are wanted. But he doesn't understand it's not HIS vision we're interested in - it's the creative content leveraging the source material that is partially derived from improvisation, and with going to the theater - it's innovation in process and technology COMBINED with less serious content that makes a person want to be a superhero in that universe to begin with. Marvel gets it. As much as he hates to admit it. But the simple fact of the matter is Gunn sucks at making superhero tales that makes you want to be like them. He can hate all he wants. The fact of the matter is his performance issues aren't anyone else's fault than his own.

So why use it for Air Force One or critical leadership functions at all? Why not instead use it for dignitary use, heads of state flights for poorer country's leaders to fly in style? Flying celebrities and other personnel on humanitarian or 'emissary' style missions? There's ZERO reason CRITICAL personnel has to go on this, but there's NO reason that this can't be turned into an opportunity to give the experience of both private and government sanctioned people doing good work for and by this country a wonderful experience without it threatening our leadership or putting other using more important aircraft... You know? Pay it forward?

An 'assets only' sale of a corporation is a scam and needs to be treated accordingly by the legal system. Imagine creating a company that takes everyone's money, then giving that money and anything invested with that money to another individual or company, then filing for bankruptcy with the liabilities. The new corporate owner isn't just liable for those liabilities. But the claim that it's an asset only sale is no different than saying they're fully aware of the scam and challenging anyone to do something about it.

I spent an extensive amount of time in Mexico, where I was regularly referred to as "cracker". Most of the time, it was intended in a derogatory way. I didn't take it as such. I just found it funny. "Yep, I'm a white guy", I'd say in Spanish. At no time did I disrespect what THEY wanted to call me there. I accepted it. Perhaps it's time those throwing a lawsuit like this around start learning what freedom of speech really means. It also means we're free to name anything whatever we want and it's YOUR choice to be offended by what we name things. A manipulative lawsuit because you're offended is your issue. Not the US's nor is it Google's issue. There's a reason the 'when' and 'where' this lawsuit was filed isn't mentioned. No court outside the US has jurisdiction over this matter, and no court in the US will honor it.

If you don't control the narrative, and outline what's fact and what's fiction, then EVERYTHING can be perceived as fact. It's not a hallucination. It's a byproduct of model censorship without a controlled narrative and established timeline. Something we dealt with at the NSA some 21 years ago.