They have been around a long time, so has IBM, or HP, but they are not exactly at the peak of their glory. They are not in the running right now for "magnificent 8".
I disagree. I think it's about pivot time, not having a warmed up stable of skilled workers just in case. Nature never optimizes for that and it shouldn't. We should lazy-load that skillset if and when it's necessary. We have writing to carry knowledge forward. Also, video and other media. People are smart and I'm sure a large cohort could be assembled with the right amount of money in fairly short order. As long as that's cheaper than keeping a battalion ready just in case, then I'd argue it's the "correct" way to approach it.
Cash back? Attention is finite and I don't want a payment processor forcing me to pay a fee so I can turn around and try and earn it back. How about lower the fee and let me keep that 1%?? Then I can earn interest on it for the month, not them. And then I don't have to read additional terms and conditions, use it or lose it, book travel through their marked up garbage store, etc. It's insane to me that you'd defend cash back as some kind of advantage to consumers when it's anything but. It's a crappy product that you can choose to avoid but I want the up front transaction fee reduced by the same amount.
Mine is just literal cash I can apply to the balance on my card. Obviously the fact that cash back exists means that the card companies are making even more money on the fees. However, since most stores charge an identical amount whether you use CC or cash, everyone is collectively paying it and you might as well get the cash/miles/rewards back.
The FCBA coverage, on the other hand, has some real value. That said, even though I have used it a few times, I doubt it has saved me as much as I've spent in CC fees.
To really reach another level of intelligence I think these are required. If I met a humanoid with zero of these, and I mean zero... I would wonder what's "intelligent" about that creature.
I'd argue these come from our basic human needs, which ultimately come from a desire to survive (or pass on genes).
I'm curious how general AI will behave with some yet unknown natural selection pressures, of sorts.
Wait, what? Why is AI unlimited? There are many constraints like the speed of information, calculation, available memory, etc. Where does it cross into the physical world? And at what scale? Is it going to mine iron unnoticed or something? How will it get raw materials to build an army? Firewalls and air gapped systems are all suddenly worthless because AI has some instant and unbounded intelligence? The militaries of the world watch while eating hot dogs?
A lot of things CAN happen but I'm confused when people state things as if they WILL. If you're that much of an oracle tell me which stonk to buy so I can go on holiday.
What about the law of conservation of matter? When have you seen anything cease to exist, and not merely transform?
Isn't the question about the universe existing really asking where energy/matter came from? How the energy and matter are configured is a different question entirely, it seems.
Should... should. So. Should they move the canneries, ports, flat land, abundant sun and all the skilled labor and their families? Mechanics, installers, fabricators, etc.
It's not like it's a small operation. There are canneries almost a mile long. There are small mountains of peach pits that form when they're processed (these are used for other purposes by the way!).
What about mature orchards?
I'm not sure why people hate California so much. It's got a lot of problems, like most places... But it's pretty amazing how much shit goes on there.
I don't hate California at all, I'm a Washington Liberal.
But the agriculture in California in the face of climate change is completely unsustainable. It is up there with the coal mining and fracking in Pennsylvania.
We need to properly manage the crisis and reduce the amount of human suffering involved because uprooting people in painful.
The alternative seems like we could wind up having literal water wars at some point. This proposal caps the diversion at 5% but that seems the same as building more freeways to me, which just causes more traffic. Give California more water and the agricultural industry will expand and you'll kick the can down the road again.
I hate california because out of hubris they create their own huge problems, ignore the obvious but slightly detrimental to the elite there solutions, claim the actual solution is some huge overengineered, overthought, magic bullet solution that is pretty much impossible to actually happen, and then that all allows Republicans to point and laugh and pretend the rest of the Democrat led states aren't perfectly functional and doing very well.
