This is a step away from having your licence to practice removed entirely. It's pretty serious.

And her demand that they tell ALL THEIR CLIENTS, OPPOSING LAWYERS AND CURRENT JUDGES IN OTHER CASES.... wow. That's gonna hurt, because those judges, lawyers etc. are going to be poring over every bit of text they'd presented looking for anything similar and if they find it there... oh boy, that's going to go badly for them.

Any lawyer with half a brain watching this will be rethinking any use of AI models, and telling their legal teams including just the researchers etc. to stay well clear of it or check its output extremely rigorously.

My ICE car does 500 miles on one tank (it can do more, but that's the average).

I don't need it to. That would comfortably last me a week and a half of commuting, my own usage of the car, etc.

And every single time, the end of that journey is:

- a workplace with EV chargers.
- my house that I can put an EV charger on
- some other place that I can get back from on a single charge and/or people wouldn't object to me plugging in and paying them for the electricity while I was there (e.g. family).

To be honest, 150 miles is more than adequate, all other things being the same. Because, unlike fuel, I wouldn't mind putting an EV on charge every evening. It takes seconds. Finding a decent fuel station that's open, secure, cheap, and then pumping fuel takes a lot longer and a lot more thought.

I'm pretty sure that most people - especially in Europe - are just the same. Range anxiety is dead. It's from when the EV ranges were 50 miles, not 350 miles. I've used vehicles like that at work, on the second-hand market they are almost worthless and they were basically being used in the same fashion as golf trolleys (literally one was only used to take mail / goods from one site to another just down the road).

Nowadays? I don't even really look at the range of an EV. I'm in the market to buy my first one. My next car WILL be a full battery EV, not even a hybrid. You know what I look at first? The price tag. Then the size of the vehicle (I don't want a huge SUV like thing, I want a small hatchback with room inside it to carry a couple of friends comfortably if necessary). Then the extras. Then the finance (leasing, PCP, "optional final payment" nonsense can feck right off).

Range doesn't really come into it any more than me checking it has headlights and wipers and all the other things I'd want to check. It's a non-issue nowadays.

Sell me a CHEAPER EV not a more expensive one with a battery that I just won't use the capacity of and which in ten year's time will be even more expensive to replace.

Er, no. Gizmodo's description (quoted in TFS) of the research findings is what is thoroughly wrong. The prediction in physics is that the metal would undergo a phase change, not "blow up". Colloquially, "blow up" generally means some form of combustion, usually detonation but arguably deflagration. Phase changes are not combustion and certainly not detonation. (Explosive boiling is a thing, but apparently not part of this research.)

As TFS mentions, the choice of 10,000 is probably 50% too high: morbidity reductions seem to plateau around 7,000 steps (3500 paces, which some people would spell "passes") per day, which is more like 6 km. Slashdotters are, like you, known for either not reading TFS or not applying common sense before commenting.

Both steps/paces and distance are only rough approximations for an exercise goal: jogging, and moreso running, usually means fewer steps per distance, and steps per minute does not change much from "brisk walk" to the low end of "run" even though cardiovascular benefit per minute goes up a lot. Probably a better value is "met-minutes", from multiplying the metabolic equivalents of exercise (reflecting intensity) by duration: aim for at least 500 met-minutes per week. Someone under 50 in good shape can easily achieve that in a day[1]: say, 11.1 METs (a not very fast run) for 45 minutes.

[1]- Exercise should be spread out over 3 to 5 days per week so you don't de-train between sessions. One might not be able to reach or maintain that level of fitness with just one exercise session per week.

I am on the side of Phillip J Fry: I am shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked. (... that Slashdot only quotes someone getting the facts largely wrong.)

You are way overthinking it. Japanese numbers use powers of ten up to 10,000 and then switch to powers of 10,000. 1,000,000 is called "100 man" (a hundred 10,000-unit counts) and the next largest value with its own name is 100,000,000 (one "oku"). That's why they settled on 10,000 as the nice round number.

There is a hyperlink to the actual journal paper, which makes it clear that they're referring to an "inverse" form of something called Kauzmann's paradox, which is an unresolved question about the behavior of supercooled liquids as they are cooled further and their entropy approaches that of a solid. Kauznann hypothesized that these liquids would always freeze before that point.

So, TFS is approximately right if you ignore the bits about it being a renowned physics model, about it being about heating things up, about it being a statement about temperature, about the result of the "energy catastrophe" (blowing up is never the predicted outcome), and about whether this paper addresses the classical model/paradox or a related but different question. I personally would call the TFS "thoroughly wrong" at that point, but maybe I'm being too picky.

It would have to, because the rest of the world wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, and the US rarely accounts for anything as much as, let alone more than, about 50% of any particular consumer market.

I think all international organisation are now realising:

The US is entirely unreliable, especially when it comes to funding.

I wouldn't bank on any of their promises or budgets any more. They've totally lost all credibility.

And especially where anything humanitarian is concerned, I'd be treating them as a minor player just because of their variable attitude and flakiness now.

I'd rather concentrate on those nations providing 5% reliably than one providing 8% but could disappear at any moment. And the longer this continues, the more it will be the way those organisations operate.

The US held - rightly or not - some position of authority in these organisations and could quite well use the "what am I paying you for" lines with some justification (though always over-egged). Now it's just a partner the same as everyone else, but far more flaky and unpredictable.

It's lovely to see them throw away so much influence so very quickly.

"Over time"?

Grok already just searches the Internet to see what Musk thinks, and then presents it as the answer.

I wish I was joking.

2500 steps is literally "existing as a human" unless you're bed-bound.

Someone once gave me their pedometer in a bid to prove that they were more active than I was (I have an office job).

In the course of a working day, just doing what I always do, I blew through 10,000 steps by lunchtime. They didn't believe me. They were somehow going OUT OF THEIR WAY to struggle to complete 10,000 steps including going for a long walk for lunch.

But 2500 steps? Yeah, you can do that just getting up and getting to work and then coming home, let alone anything you do in-between.

Almost, but not quite. Merely using these is not necessarily a problem, but TFA only talks about one "community bank" arguably/maybe taking that position. TFA mentions people missing payments, which is a sign of credit risk. It also mentions rolling over BNPL debt into credit card debt (specifically, that some banks prohibit this, which undercuts your suggestion that the banks are only in it for profit through interest and fees). TFA also discusses people using BNPL plans to pay for rapidly consumed goods like groceries; that's a heck of a red flag for credit risk.

Is it profitable yet?

Even the $200 / month tier isn't profitable, apparently.

And they were trying to push a $10,000 "PhD-level" tier to try to make some cash.

While you're giving stuff away, I'm sure it's popular. What happens when you start charging even cost price for it? Or when you start trying to profit from it?

Because you only really have another year or so before investors want answers like that.

Google was "free" for years, great, useful and very popular, but had to then basically pivot into the advertising business to survive.

Before we redesign how we do everything and get locked into buying this stuff and making things dependent on it... it would be nice to know how you intend to fund it when investors start demanding a return.

I mean, obviously, if it was actually real AI it would be making its own money, just like any intelligent being. Has ChatGPT got so much as a Saturday job yet?

And how did just googling do?

Because the "AI" is still really nothing more than a glorified search engine wrapped in a nonsense blurb-spouter.