It's not clear that when you include all externalities fission power is the cheapest way to power the grid. But there are places where it probably is the cheapest way to power something. (Or if not cheapest, has other overriding benefits.)
OTOH, including all externalities is tricky. I'm always dubious when I read a claim that it's been done.
We don't WANT China to win. They ethnically cleansed Tibet, oppressed Hong Kong and committed genocide on the Uighurs. Not to forget the Tienanmen Square Massacre in 1989.
This is Cold War 2.0, and the sooner we relegate them to the ash heap of history, the better.
The FORTRAN IV that I wrote in the early 1960's would still compile and run today. The FORTRAN II that people were writing a few years earlier wouldn't even compile and run by the time I started programming.
Remove 230 and sites become liable for most of the abuses. Those sites don't have anything like the pockets of those abusing them.
Some sites do have the money: X, Facebook and the like. All the small sites (like Slashdot) don't and would be very likely to shut down.
Without Section 230, sites are more likely to be sued for moderating, not less. Section 230 protects "good faith" moderation.
How many people can afford to sue Trump?
Nothing to do with the merits of the dispute, but the cost of Trump's litigation strategy.
This; if a platform is informed of illegal behavior, they ought to have liability to take it down.
Clear, simple and utterly wrong. Who can report? Anyone? Who gets to decide if it is illegal? How quickly does the platform have to respond.
Look at how the Copyright takedown notices work today. Platforms are flooded with such notices, many of which come from sources unrelated to the copyright holder, or who misrepresent copyright ownership, or who ignore fair use. The result is that lots of items get taken down for bogus reasons.
Multiple examples of fraudulent coercion in elections, multiple examples of American plutocrats attempting to trigger armed insurrections in European nations, multiple "free speech" spaces that are "free speech" only if you're on the side that they support, and multiple suicides from cyberharassment, doxing, and swatting, along with a few murder-by-swatting events.
What makes you think that these will stop if Section 230 is repealed? In fact, what is likely to happen is that this type of "speech" will be the only thing left.
Perhaps you don't really understand Section 230?
It may be temporary (I doubt it), but it's not "very temporary" as the same thing has been reported for months with pretty steadily increasing urgency.
OTOH, the AIs clearly aren't good enough to replace programmers, or probably even coders. So what's currently happening is probably jobs being redesigned to use an AI where it makes sense. Expect LOTS of failures in this redesign, but it will be the successes that shape the future...unless the AIs get a LOT better. (Currently they don't understand the problem they're trying to answer.)
Molten salt may well be a viable answer to many problems. But, yeah, it needs development...and it's not clear that it would be cheaper for grid based power.
You're assuming that the current skills will serve you later. This MAY be true, but is by no means guaranteed. The interfaces of current AIs are definitely quite immature, and can be expected to change a lot. Probably also their competency.
The Dems are sponsoring this repeal bill.
Thus showing how stupid some Dems (mostly the "establishment Democrats") are and why the Dems need some new blood.
What abut Neal Stephenson? His books are a bit hit-and-miss. Snow Crash I found to be excellent, but Seveneves was just awful -- a waste of time that seemed designed merely to satisfy the author's interest in the physics of whips.
Possibly Iain M Banks? The Culture is such an optimistic view of the future, notwithstanding all the gruesome deaths?
And the concept of artificial hells (Surface Detail).
Iain Bans wrote one of the all-time great first lines in a novel:
"It was the day my grandmother exploded"
Yes.
Let's be clear on the purpose of this campaign: Trump and the GOP have got control of the big platforms. Those big platforms can withstand the loss of Section 230.
Repealing Section 230 would result in thousands (millions?) of small platforms shutting down. Those big platforms don't want the competition and some (all?) of the GOP is on board with this, now that they control the big platforms.
Plausible, if it's good enough. The real problem here is lots of shitty code being submitted. So much that they need quick ways to get rid of most of it.
As for "explain the code", that's trickier. I remember struggling to explain why I did something a particular way a few months later. When I figured it out again, it was the right approach, but it wasn't obvious why.
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.
