> Asimov's laws of robotics are flawed too, of course.
I always find the common references to Asimov's laws funny. They are broken in just about every one of his books. They are crime novels where, if a robot was involved, there was some workaround of the laws.
Why didn't the author of the article take the 30s I did, and redo the experiment today, with Claude? Rather important, since Claude is what impressed Dawkins, and that impression is the core subject of the article.
I asked Claude the great wall question, and the answer is not what the article describes:
That claim is false — and it actually mixes up two separate myths!
The Great Wall of China is not visible from Spain. Spain is roughly 9,000+ km away from China — no artificial structure on Earth is visible from that distance with the naked eye.
You're likely thinking of the popular myth that the Great Wall is "visible from space" or "from the Moon." That's also false:
(it then goes on with a detailed, perfect answer).
Of course. I'm not rooting for the US' downfall. It is a loss of western values. It saddens me, but it is a fact they're veering away from the French Revolution principles.
> If they are mapping that to "reduction in green energy" or "reversal of green energy adoption" I think they are very wrong indeed.
Because there is a global trend towards green energy use, caused by economic factors. It's bound to be more expressive outside the US, because of politics.
Have you tried it with something like OpenSpec? Strangely, taking the time to lay out the steps in a large task helps immensely. It's the difference between the behavior you describe and just letting it run productively for segments of ten or fifteen minutes.
I'm Portuguese, so read this as a view from outside. Brexit traded rigid limits on national action for soft limits. It is bonkers, because the soft limits are much harsher!
Take, for example, trade policy. Facing trade tariffs from the US, Europe can call the bluff, the UK is way too small to have any cards on the negotiating table. It is much better to be in a huge economic block than to face the bully alone. On paper you have more formal power alone, in practice you have no power whatsoever on your own.
The absence of formal action limits can be deceitful. Limits are not only there anyhow, they are worse for you outside the economic block.
So, no, you won't be better in 20 years. In fact, given the direction the world is going, you'll be worse than even today.
You're mixing the permissions system of the OS with the app store. They are independent from one another.
> I’m not going to go on some strange website and enter my card to download every piece of software and neither are most people. The App Store brings you customers that you would never have.
The fact that open application ecosystems exist and thrive proves your assertion wrong.
The idea is that you give the store operator a monopoly, with the downsides this implies(1), in exchange for security. If security is absent, there's no justification for accepting a monopoly.
(1) For example, the store keeping an absurd share of app revenues. About 30%, isn't it?
I know I can clean up crapware, via adb, but on principle vote with my wallet. It's not acceptable to charge me something that rounds to a thousand euros and then fleece me for a few extra bucks.
Right now, I restrict my selection to Android One [1] phones. The current one is a Nokia 8 Sirocco.
I have a 5th gen X1 Carbon. Great machine in every aspect but RAM, and runs Linux flawlessly. It has 8GB RAM, which is more than enough for Linux plus developer containers, but not quite enough for running VMs; and it is soldered to the motherboard and thus non-upgradeable.
My setup cost ~1.5k€ (base setup plus larger NVRAM, better screen) although if you add touch screen, 3G and other bells and whistles you get to 3k€ pretty fast. I wouldn't add any hard requirement over the base machine.