Meh, we're talking something that should in bulk be the price of a low-end car and works 24/7 without breaks. Hard to make the case that that's not "economically practical". And as for realism, I'd take a mixed stance.

The truth lies somewhere between you and the GP.

Against the GP: the plan IS to have robots do those sorts of things. And there's real progress being made.

Against you: it's not simply a matter of "being programmed to do those things". Robotics is the least advanced AI field at present - in part because there's no convenient internet-scale training datasets to work with for real-world interactions, and also because accumulating physical real-world interactions impose time and cost bottlenecks. Beyond all issues of longevity in real-world (physically taxing / complex ) environments. I think a bet that we're *not* going to get their in our lives is a very bad bet (unless you're currently on palliative care!), but talking about it like it's just "some programmer needs to code a specific job" just isn't where we are - carefully curated and parameter-defined stunts aside.

Think, for example, of automated driving as another example. Very real progress over many years. Also still not to the mass deployment stage. And that's a much more "controlled environment", with much larger datasets, than general-purpose robotics. I must stress that "general purpose" aspect, because that's what's needed for the sort of jobs in question here. It's not simply "robot arm that's bolted down, target gets inserted into the target location, series of precise actions taken on it". The real world has an endless series of "unexpected things" in it, and a robot doing real-world physical chores absolutely must be adaptive to them.

Reality: No. They're forming a wholly-owned LLC, not a 501(c)(3) charity. They're treated as a disregarded entity for tax purposes. Transferring shares from Anthropic to the new LLC is just moving money from Anthropic's left pocket to its right pocket. You don't get a tax deduction from that. To get a deduction from IRC 170, you have to make an irrevocable transfer to a qualified 501(c)(3) charity.

If Anthropic later donates from this LLC to actual charities, it could then claim a corporate charitable deduction (against up to 10% of their profits - and note that word, profits; also, there's no breaks for UBI programs targeted at individuals). But the formation of this entity and transfer of 5% of their shares to it does not give them any sort of a tax break whatsoever, and there's no difference between donating from this structure to a charity and donating directly from Anthropic. In fact, by forming this structure, they're skipping a potential tax break that they could get by forming and donating to a 501(c)(3) upfront.

(If your next question is "why not a 501(c)(3), then?", the answer is because there's all sorts of IRS restrictions on 501(c)(3)s, including distributing at least 5% of assets annually, excise taxes on investment gains, strict limits on cash transfers to individuals, etc)

I get that it's popular for mod points to be cynical, but at least focus your cynicism on factuality. Try this: "We found a PR cheat! And how to turn things our CEO wants to do anyway and might not do until many years from now into a pre-IPO press release!"

Why?

I run a Shopify store, and if anybot wants to buy from me, by all means, and please invite all your bot-friends!

I think the only merchants who should be fearing this are ones relying on brand recognition rather than low prices and good products, since bots have more time to "shop around".

BTW, this also applies to old games. Have an old game that no longer runs on modern operating systems? In Europe, you have the right to task an AI to fix it so it will run.

Adding *new features*, mind you, is trickier. You're not allowed to decompile and alter a program to add new features, but you *are* allowed to decompile for interoperability purposes. So you are within your rights to task an AI to decompile a program to figure out how to link a mod into it and then to write a mod.

In Europe, it is. Article 6 of the Software Directive grants an "interoperability exemption". The lawful licensee of software has the statutory right to strip DRM in order to achieve interoperability. Any EULA terms that prohibit reverse engineering for interoperability are automatically treated as void. Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC also grants the ability to decompile to fix bugs that impair the ability to use the software, even if the supplier prohibits it. So long as you don't then start sharing your "offline mode" version of the software, you're within your rights

People in Europe are within their rights to task an AI to decompile and tweak a game they own make an "offline mode" version of it, or to create their own servers or whatnot if the manufacturer plans to shut them down or otherwise strip features that the user paid for.

Of course, the US is less consumer-friendly in this regard.

As for Islamic countries, there's only two that ban women from driving: Afghanistan and Turkmenistan - both de facto / arbitrary / adminstrative bans rather than official bans (e.g. refusing to issue/renew licenses, requiring guardians for long-distance travel, or things of that nature). Saudi Arabia revoked their ban in 2018. And Iran has always allowed women to drive (though they have to cover their hair while driving).

*Full, nationwide bans*? No. But the Soviet Union banned women from many types of driving (as "arduous and hazardous"), such as driving subways, long-haul freight, various kinds of heavy construction machinery, etc. These were inherited and retained post-Soviet states, including Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, though the lists of jobs has dropped over time. Even today, in Belarus (where Lukaschenko talks up the nation's foundational Christian values), under Article 262, women can't drive a firetruck or operate heavy machinery with significant vibration (under the grounds of "safeguarding womens' reproductive health")

Heck, even in the US, up until 2015,, women couldn't drive a tank, an IFV, a mobile artillery piece, operate a submarine (until 2010), or a number of other military roles. And Hegseth wants to reverse the earlier decisions. And Trump also seems to have it in for women as even commercial airline pilots as well.

I mean, normally green stars aren't real, to the human eye. The problem is that from a standard blackbody curve, as you go up in surface temperature, by the time you've flipped the red-green cone activation ratio to the green side, you're getting so much blue that it looks like white instead. And then if you keep going, blue dominates and it turns blue. So it goes red, yellow, white, blue, not stopping for green. You also don't get purple because, for the most part, purple needs a strong red activation, little green, alongside at least a reasonable amount of blue - but with stars, the blue is way stronger than the red under a typical blackbody curve (there actually is a small shortwave red activation peak, so you *can* get purple purely with shortwave (like in a rainbow), but in the blackbody spectrum, the blue is so dominant that its not enough).

The trick here is that specific emission and absorption spectra can deviate from a standard blackbody curve. It may seem weird because one is used to sodium emission lamps being orange. But in the star's ~4000K photosphere, pressure broadening smears out the sodium doublet into a massive absorption trough, absorbing red to yellow light. Accreted calcium also has a similar effect on the blue side of the spectrum. Look back at the 4000K blackbody curve in the above link, imagine even a relatively minor suppression in both red and blue, and you can see how it morphs into a curve that the eye will read as green. :)

Well, thanks to what we learned from the IAU in the Pluto debacle, where "dwarf planets" are not classified as planets, I look forward to dwarf stars not even being classified as stars soon enough ;) And wait until dwarf galaxies get kicked out of the galaxy club! ;)

There's a grate on the bottom that keeps out big debris. Small debris isn't great for the fan, but it's even worse for the car behind you.

The car has onboard compressors (fills from the rear).
Very loud with the fan, extremely loud with the rockets.
You get blasted with hurricane-force winds.

Fan cars, like rockets, are too noisy and have too much debris risk for normal roads. Both fans and rockets will have to be locked behind a track mode, with the possible exception of in emergencies / AEB, where things like noise and debris hazards are generally waived if it can help prevent or ameliorate an accident.

Depends on how big the rounds are and how far away they're fired from.

They don't float though. Sounds like Elon kept pushing and pushing the engineers on that one and they just could not deliver in any sort of way that would keep practical as an actual car. I wonder how much money they burned trying...

That compares to the OP's claim that the car is CG how?

I'd also add to CAIMLAS's list about how to make the exhaust gas travel so quickly away from the car and form sustained mach diamonds if they're not actual thrusters with choked supersonic jets