What's the issue? Backups can be trickled to their destination, and so can the OS update. It's just done in the background and when it's ready, it's ready. There's no technical or user experience related reason why an iOS device needs to ever be connected to a PC.
That's not really context, just another assertion that allowing women to vote is a "bad thing", just restated in different phrasing, which obviously provides nothing in the way of an argument.
There can't be an algorithmic test for intelligence, other than by an equally or greater intelligent agent, because anything automated has answers static enough that you can just code specific solutions for them.
Well since critical thinking and "complex reasoning" are impossible to measure on a standardized test, the entire article is pretty much pointless. I.E. the media needs to stop acting like the important effects of education can be measured easily and en masse and therefore reported on in their articles.
Article Summary: attack the very premise of achieving general intelligence by attacking narrow AI techniques such as machine learning and their obvious inadequacies, and then acknowledging that they have not in fact, accomplished general intelligence.
“Where the heck were you when the page was blank?” - Paul Butterworth
Always such a bogus argument. This is what people say when they don't like your opinion but have no argument to counter, so they resort to a rhetorical that implies you have no authority on the issue. But the fact is you do not need to be a creator to criticize a creation legitimately. Sometimes specializing in just observation/criticism and not creation allows you more time to think things over from the standpoint of analysis, whereas creation demands that a large portion of your mental energy goes to the creation process.
I can't speak to the blog in question but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of a blog just for the sake of criticism. How it goes about that criticism and any unnecessary hostility is another issue.
Google already has "search engine sex", it's called revision control (although I really doubt this is what Krugman had in mind.) To solve Google's spam problem, they either need better business priorities or smarter engineers, depending on which popular explanation of Google's spam problem is accurate.
> And the most persuasive answer, as I understand it, is defense against parasites.
Probably more likely the general ability to merge in one generation two or more highly advantageous adaptations into one individual, which could include parasite defense but also everything else.