Porridge?? That's grain you planet wrecking democracy destroyer. Now shut up and eat your beetle flakes.

You're assuming they detect the crimes rather than commit them.

We saw that same headlines for cryptocurrency. This isn't a predictable phenomena.

The efficiency of "AI" changes literally every day: this stuff is under active and rapid development, in both the software and hardware. Taking current power consumption with current software and hardware and extrapolating it to some future using some made up usage figure is not meaningful.

I see some already talking about how it was easier/cheaper when the state paid 80% of the costs. This is true. We also saw colleges and universities being told to run themselves as businesses, that was to grow and focus on the dollar rather than the product.

I watched as my expenses grew every year. I was able to keep up but only because I took a few hours ever year until I was done.
At the same time, I watched how international students filled the graduate programs and that became the more important programs of the university as they made more money.
Next the online programs started to become more and more popular which drove down people moving to town to live and get the college experience. So you have remote students not moving to town and you have an administration doing everything they can to deport and deter international students. You will never guess what the end result is going to be for this small country town.

The writing is on the wall as the anti-intellectuals are in charge.

Yet, you're going to have to have people who setup the welding robots and jobs to maintain the robots. Then you have to have engineers who make alterations when the program changes. You also have to fund people to feed the robot unless you fully automate the production. Then again, this only works if you have a model that doesn't change that often. When you have product lines change rapidly, it becomes more problematic to have welding robots create a production line than it does the use manual labor to do the job. AI will help change this some, but you still have human labor involved in setting up some of these tasks.

There will continue to be jobs, they just won't be the same jobs. In some cases, these jobs tend to be higher paying jobs for people who are specialized in fields that don't quite exist yet. You're going to see people migrate and train in these new fields just long enough to become relevant and watch the fields evaporate because corporate found some new hotness.

... are going to use AI to decomission the higher ranking jobs and the income streams they are tied to.

This is more of a social thing than a job performance / skill issue. More senior folks are offloading their work to AI and enabling they job to be more chill. As a senior webdev I'm observing this first hand. AI enables me to do in hours what I would've needed days or even weeks to do just 18 months back. It's like having the core team of devs for a given software toolkit sitting next to you, eager to hand out appropriate code-snippets or give precise and elaborate explanation on details of the stack and tech involved. I'm the sole senior webdev in a company of ~70 lawyers and my team is updating their mode of working on a monthly basis right now. Just half an hour ago my boss sitting across from me now booked the newest ChatGPT codex subscription and is using to solve a data-migration problem he was brooding over yesterday. Things are moving at a breakneck pace right now and I don't really expect my world to look anything like it does right now in 12 months.

Ergo: Anybody doing a desk-(bullshit)-job who thinks he's going to be spared by AI is being delusional, no matter how "senior" they are. When a 20 Euro/month AI can speed up a lawyers summary from 8 billable hours to 30 seconds shit is about to get real. Epic style.

If EULAs have no legal force, they have no reason to do that. If they do it anyway, it's just a nuisance.

That's not a good answer, because there ARE crucial updates.
Much better it just to ensure that EULAs have, at most, no legal force. Possibly they could be considered assault. (They clearly *are* a threat.)

EVs are superior in just about every metric. The sooner ICEs behind quaint vintage oddities, the better. We're late enough as it is with the fossil fuel turn-around.

L00ny or not, you have to give Elon Musk credit for being a key figure in making this happen.

That is awesome. They're climbing a curve as they figure out how to build hohlraums. A couple more improvements and they'll have one order of magnitude power gain. Inertial confinement is amenable to large gains because the targets (tiny "pellets" of fuel) can be enlarged as the design of the hohlraum is improved to focus laser power. Obviously there is some ceiling, but until you approach that limit, the same laser is gives you ever larger increases in gain.

Your assertion doesn't exactly contradict my guess. It's a conditional probability that I'm questioning, and which (based on the titles) your sources don't address. (And my guess is not totally without basis...but the basis was a popular report, not a technical one. You could trace it down in, I think, Science News sometime a couple of years ago. (I don't really expect you to, and it might have been in New Scientist.)

OTOH, that *was* a couple of years ago, and perhaps there have been studies done since. (But the titles of the studies you listed imply they don't address the conditional probability.)

Well, I can't check your sources, as it's not my area of expertise. But anecdotally I'm quite well aware of one case that was both vaccinated and treated with paxlovid, but also ended up with long COVID. So I'm dubious. I quite accept that vaccination decreases the probability of a serious case, but since long COVID is already a minor probability, I'm much less convinced that it decreases the probability of long COVID *if* one catches a case of COVID anyway.

I acknowledge that this is anecdotal information, and not sufficient for a formal study...but it's the information I have first hand available to evaluate. Second hand information, even from a study, always has an additional bit of uncertainty added. (E.g.: Was the study correct? Do I really understand what it's saying was proven?) Most of your reports don't seem to indicate anything about the probability of long COVID *given* that COVID has occurred, but (judging from the title and the excerpts) only address the prevalence of long COVID.

JS is one of the most prevalent PL in layer 7 these days. For good reasons, even if some of those are historic.
- open standards (Web)
- cross platform (FOSS Web)
- lots of shiny clicky touchy stuff (Web)
- lives in a space that is based on documents and static data and only introduces Turing as an afterthought (Web) ... and yes this _is_ an advantage!
- the strict typing thing needed for bigger stuff is also an afterthought done with a trivially simple FOSS superset of JS that you can pick up and use in 5 Minutes ... if you're taking the slow approach (TypeScript) ... also a huge advantage ... I could go on but the truth of the matter is that JS is today what Java originally wanted to be. Meaning if there is a special scenario where JS doesn't suffice there is very likely some specialized language and tech that does without having to stretch JS any further. So just use those solutions.

2 Eurocents from a seasoned Webdev.

Sorry, while COVID vaccine decreases the chance of getting COVID, and decreases the severity of the disease, there are indications that it doesn't decrease the prevalence of long COVID (among those who do catch the disease).

So this isn't additional evidence that vaccination isn't desirable. If you weren't already convinced, this won't convince you.

FWIW, I'm relying of articles from Science News to make the assertions in the first paragraph. And they WEREN'T and assertion that there is no effect, merely that there were indications that there wasn't. You'd need a focused study to determine THAT, and even getting people to admit the existence of long COVID has been difficult enough.

... demand anything political.
---

Incel, definition

Incel (involuntary celebate) is a gender neutral term. Coined by an incel woman(!). The largest group of Incels are handicapped and/or disfigured people, followed by people with non-hetero-normal sexual orientation, then followed by heterosexual men, the vast overwhelming majority of which aren't misogynists but timid, shy, intimidated by women and/or the mating game and - often as a result - depressed.

To emphasize: Noisemakers on the internet aren't representative of Incels, despite what the misinformed public or some dimwitts on reddit think about the term.

Please stop perpetuating this ill-informed misrepresentation of Incels at large.

Thank you.