Comment Re:Risk reward and perverse incentives (Score 1) 38
99.9% of that can be solved with allowing the construction of new designs of reactors instead of booting the old ones back up.
99.9% of that can be solved with allowing the construction of new designs of reactors instead of booting the old ones back up.
Well, part of the answer is clearly "because the official stance of the US govt. is that AI should not be regulated". (Yeah, it's more nuanced than that, but that's the short form.)
"I'm writing a book on Jeffrey Dahmer...
Bigly Testosterone!
But the researchers were told to get to the heart of the matter.
They don't want to give the hackers clues so they can't counter. If they tell you they'd have to kill you.
"Are your base are belong to us!"
The difference is that if you pay people to monkey around with things, you get a non-revocable perpetual license to the result. With license rental, you get a perpetual bill. It's the same rent trap as individuals get stuck in but with less excuses.
For some customers, they looked at the resources needed to migrate, and decided it was cheaper to stay put and/or invest the resources that would be needed elsewhere in their business.
Yes, and the reason is that they stupidly painted themselves into a corner and never thought about an exit strategy. Had they been thinking about the possibility that they might one day need to migrate from the beginning, it would be much cheaper to do so now.
That's the thing about painting yourself into a corner, a little better planning at the start can always avoid it with little to no additional effort.
The bigger you are, the harder it is to turn the ship in an emergency. See Titanic.
At some point the inertia of change isn't worth it, as you suggested. It is possible, but is it worth it?
The last way to look at this is a way to start the process of diversifying our Tech holdings. Windows, Office, Adobe, VMWare etc. But here is my take, STEAM is showing the way out. We're not there yet, but the tide appears to be turning (to keep the nautical terms going).
Broken clocks are still broken, even when they occasionally tell the time correctly.
That one actually has some science behind it. Not enough to trust, but some.
Well, it would lose all sensory and motor connections. Sometimes some of them reconnect over a period of several months...but many never do.
I think you die of various neural problems before the reconnection has a chance to get started. (And, of course, you've got a horrendous case of "bubble boy" syndrome for the rest of your life.)
IIUC, there are cells in the body that retain the "true copy". (I.e., they've duplicated VERY few times.) However, they therefore aren't widely distributed. This means no "local process" in most of the body has access to them. It's why women produce only a limited number of ova. S.a. Hayflick limit.
I'm pretty sure that's too simple an answer. There are several lines of evidence that suggest much of aging depends on the blood (at least in mice). Which doesn't imply that there aren't other parts.
(One experiment I read about grafted together the blood steams of a young mouse and an old mouse. The old mouse appeared to get younger.,)
Round Numbers are always false. -- Samuel Johnson