D'Oh!.

There's also a novel that states that the lifeblood of an organism can be used to bring eternal life to certain parasitical creatures (who otherwise can't survive in sunlight). It's probably worth washing the transplanted hearts in holy water before inserting them into the recipient.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future returns" applies to any recorded dataset. Modelling a fictional being's mental states is fun, but stating that it is useful is premature.

The observed fictional being might be always sleepy in your dataset (because it's easier to record him when he's not moving much). And identifying the being's favourite colour (orange) may be irrelevant and wasteful in your model.

If you observe yourself in the mirror, and see your reflection eating spaghetti, is it a useful framework to pretend that the spaghetti is real? If you're still hungry, will you reach through the glass to steal the plate from the other you? And should you first make a plan how to defend the loot, in case the reflection becomes angry and punches you in the face?

Python isn't a glue language. It's the lingua franca of most programmers in the workforce at this point in history.

Try hiring some expert C++ programmers, or even competent Java programmers. They're in the minority. What you get instead is barely competent grads who only know Python. What do you do with those grads after you've hired them?

1) teach the grads a strongly typed industrial strength language so they can contribute.... eventually

2) develop your new projects in Python because the grads can be productive straightaway, and the long term issues with Python can be pushed off to a future manager.

Which brings me to my point: Python should be frozen as is. No more development. Tinkering with it just because some people want to contribute and get visibility in open source is not a good cost/benefit outcome for humanity.

Freeze Python. It's the modern BASIC. Move all the existing developers to a new, unrelated programming language project. Give them free reign to do whatever they want there.

I don't think people looking for entertainment are going to pay to watch a propaganda hit piece.

I call article shenanigans.

Element is a UK company. Which is not part of the EU. Why should the EU choose to use a non-European company, headquartered in a non-European country, with a non-European, non-compliant legal system?

The UK is already barred from offering unrestricted financial services in the EU, I expect communications services to be an area of concern.

Brexit is Brexit. The UK is out, and simply cannot be trusted with European communications backbones.

I may be willing to believe that there's been a tender process and their product is currently being evaluated, but on privacy grounds alone I doubt their product passes the bar unless they reincorporate in an EU country with 51% EU ownership, all other things being equal.

Warnings about its dangers need to be stated in a way that they will understand. Like maybe "All AI models already have a kill switch: the computer's power cord.

That's literally not a kill switch. How do you kill an AI if you're not in the room where the power cord is plugged in?

"Your honour, I tried killing my AI but it runs in the cloud and I don't know where. Also my AI service supplier refused to turn it off for me when I called them"

Kill switches are a very good thing. When you need them you need them to work. Like any good tool, they are complex to implement correctly. And like any good tool, they should be implemented early. Not as an afterthought, like these AI companies want to do.

A world without kill switches is a world where the kill switch is an EMP.

And rightly so. The senator is not Trump. He is not immune from prosecution like Trump is. So it makes perfect sense that if someone doxxed Trump it should be treated differently than if Trump doxxed a regular American. Trump is a special case with special rights.

I(f you don't like it, maybe don't elect a king?)

There are people who do, Mr Coward, and there are people who don't do. You're one of those.

Well, you're a Coward, Mr Anonymous. So obviously I think you're too scared to actually do what the French did.

Can we call it Stupid Intelligence yet?

"There use to be news, with editors that would filter out the wrongthink"
FTFY

Wading through the garbage, one does find a few gems from time to time. Not unfounded rumours, but verified stories with links to sources that the regular newspapers do not print for some reason, or discussions and opinions outside of your own bubble. And it becomes clear how much of a bubble mainstream publications have become. Or maybe they always were...

Yup. I'm expecting "lickable" buttons and windows next.

A judge typically has that discretion already. Your point of view is valid, but I think it encourages gaming, like any other situation where the payoff is thought to be known in advance.