![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
That’s a bingo.
The idea that “they” don’t want the American public driving EVs is ridiculous.
That’s a bingo.
The idea that “they” don’t want the American public driving EVs is ridiculous.
Sure. And - ya know - not funneling money into a totalitarian regime.
No, they don’t want the profits getting funneled off to China.
For real. If fingers were that easy to lob off nobody would make it to middle age with all of their digits.
Irrelevant to the Harkonnen as long as they meet their quotas.
Because one carryall can service multiple harvesters, thus reducing operating and equipment costs.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Raytheon has been making a few improvements since the 70’s, like getting rid of the bullets.
https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/integrated-air-and-missile-defense/lasers
Fits on a pickup truck.
https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/integrated-air-and-missile-defense/lasers
That’s why Raytheon developed a laser based anti-drone system. Electricity is cheaper than bullets.
There are enormous downsides including mechanical reliability and weight.
Raytheon is already selling a system that assists a human operator in drone targeting, then knocks them out with a laser emitter. The whole thing fits on the back of a Polaris off-road vehicle and runs on electricity. That means the ammo is a gallon or two of fuel.
We’ve had that technology since the 70’s, it’s called the Phalanx system and it automatically defends naval vessels against incoming missiles.
To do this the Phalanx fires 4,500 rounds per minute. While it only has to fire for 1-3 seconds per incoming object, that’s still an ungodly number of rounds, each one about the length of your hand.
To do the same with a human operated firearm would take such a degree of luck that you may as well pray for the incoming drone to get struck by lightning.
Looking at things pragmatically widespread education of the population takes time and simply won’t take for some people. There are folks today complaining that “they don’t teach taxes in school”. These people have a problem filling out a 1040EZ. Not exactly encouraging.
At the same time Tic Tok represents a single vector for current or potential foreign propaganda and intelligence gathering targeting the American public. Opportunities to nip a single bud (so to speak) are few and far between and probably won’t be possible in the near future.
TL;DR - The “sell or ban” is a short term measure that won’t take a lot of time, education is a long term measure that takes years.
Well, there’s a whole string of words I’ve never seen next to each other.
I am outraged that - let me check my notes - the EIC of The Verge has published an article partially generated by AI.
And then everyone clapped
I’m arguing against the technology. I believe that the decision to make an arrest should fall to a human being and that individual should be allowed to override a bad call by the shit being billed as AI.
There’s a real possibility that law enforcement agencies may try to foist responsibility for decisions onto software and require officers to abide by the recommendations of said software. That would be a huge mistake.
In terms of legal precedent this may be a good thing in the long run.
The software billed as “AI” these days is half baked. If one or more law enforcement agencies point to the new piece of software the city deployed as their probable cause to make an arrest it won’t take long for that to get challenged in court.
This sets the stage for the legality of the software to be challenged now (in half baked form) and to set a legal standard demanding high accuracy and/or human assessment when making an arrest.
Yeah, the guy’s team was writing “articles and blog posts promoting a tech company”.
Letting an LLM mangle that isn’t exactly a huge loss.