They cost more up front and they cost more in the long term. As long as water stays cheap there is "no reason" (commercially) to do thing differnetly. That's how this works.

Read the article: he tailgated. If you're so well traveled surely you recognise these boarding gates that are designed to allow people to drag their rollaboards through them are trivial to tailgate.

The plagirism bot combined a bunch of things that were not created by it or the people who made the bot and it spit out a conglomoration of other people's work. Not a surprise. The issue is whether that's an acceptable way to do things or not.

The Sam Altman types, and the Thiel/Musk types especially, want technofeudalism with them on top. For some of them the "good of society" factors in but it is always after this.

Is this a bit where you pretend you don't know how money works?

I always wonder what has to have gone so badly wrong in one's life to spent their time online defending narcissist billionaires that do not know you exist and if they did would think you're a sucker.

I would consider "basic competency" to include when to and specifically not to use "AI". If it's being taught by realists and not starry eyed tech maximalists that take whatever is marketed to them it could be a good thing. How to detect AI, where it is appropriate to use or not, what needs to be checked if it's been used. Perhaps an explanation of the hype and what is real and what is irrational exuberance meant to prop up a valuation bubble.

You've outed yourself as having no experience in the thing you are commenting on. What you said up there sounds like a thing that is believeable for someone who has never done anything like it before. The reality is front ends of projects are highly opinionated and almost never accept PRs from anyone outside of the core team unless it fits with their very narrow vision of what the frone end shold be. So maybe your bug fix will be accepted (probably not anyway) but your feature development almost definitly will not. This is the (social and technical) reality.

Hello cultist, you might want to check out which areas dominate the country in finance and income. They can buy anything they need form anyone they want. While your "tenmporarily embarassed millionaires" on food stamps and the farming companies who are consuming government money rather than suceeding at their supposed industry will no longer be able to get handouts. I'm all for it.

With an ignorant comment like that, missing the entire point, why are you even reading this site? Surely you don't work in the industry in any meaningful way. Are you in sales perhaps?

Little hint for why people get "nasty" about trump: his' motivations are clear (self dealing) and even if what he's purporting to do is something one agrees with in principal he always goes about it in an incorrect and damaging way. How is it that you haven't picked up on this? It's really, really obvious.

None of those staistics nor anecdotes address what I said in my very simple to understand post. I know it's very difficult for so many people in the medical field to accepts, that's why statistics matter. Including those for lung cancer. I'm sure you have access to JAMA - look it up some time. This is so well understood anyone can find it so there's no need to read dowen the dozens of studies over the years, because with someone who posts like the above you're just not going to believe any study because you like anecdotes not data.

And I get it. Accepting statistical outcomes that so goes agains what you truly feel and even think you know based on your miniscule individual experience surely must be correct! But at a population level it's been shown over and over and over to not be the case.

No, not "of course". Over and over again excessive testing and diagnostics have not led to better patient outcomes. They have led to much more treatment and more money going to doctors and hospitals, but not better outcomes.

It is not because they "refuse to change" it's because the laws, regulations and case law around their use cases are not clear or compatible with anything else. This is risk mitigation.

The vast majority of faxes being sent are inbox to inbox with a third party on both sides doing a ridiculous didgital to analog back to digital using voip over the internet then shoving the "fax" into email. Nobody wants that expense if it's not necessary. It still is.

Checks are the same thing. There are no good alternatives, and no - third party services are not what I consider alternatives. Most other countries have figured this out. That's what needs to happen first before checks go away: a true universal alternative, backed by law and regulation, without third parties and with appropriate consumper protections.

Who's "confirmation page"? What portal? How do I know it can be trusted to prove payment? What laws and case law are there around that?

It's great that you don't care, but lits of people do. There is no valid alternative to using checkes for a lot of things right now. No, "Zelle" and other third parties are not valid alternatives.

Other coutnries have figured this out a long time ago. Interback transfers from phones backed by law and consumer protections. That's where things need to be at a minimum before discussing removing the ridiculously outdated method we have of doing this now.