It’s almost like they know people aren’t going to read past the headline.

I suspect that part they master already what with the similarities with shorter range ordnances they produce

Exactly. Now they just need a big rocket to take it to the other side of the globe and space rocket works great for that. Both Atlas and Titan rockets for example are ICBMs derived from space rockets.

It’s about 4mm too short. It’s a classic trope with clamps - you never have enough of them or the right one.

The solution is always more clamps

I just have a shitty bookkeeper who I paid to screw up my taxes.

This is absolutely true. I have 1.5 meter pipe clamps as well but the first time I tried using them ended up the same way: not long enough.

The price difference would’ve bought me 8 hot dogs!

I overpaid my taxes and got 3300€ back.

Also, yesterday my customer blew my mind by telling me that he’s a literal rocket engineer by profession. Then I blew his mind by knowing the difference between Ramjet and Scramjet. He gave me that impressed Obama meme look which stroked my ego.

I did, but lets not talk about that.

I bet the people upvoting that don’t know either.

Synthetic motor oil is chemically quite similar to conventional motor oil. Both are made from hydrocarbons. One is drilled from the ground, the other is made in a lab. Lab-grown meat vs. animal meat would be a much better comparison.

But you’re comparing apples to oranges. Vegan chicken that tastes exactly like chicken is as good as it can get. If it tastes better than actual chicken, then you’ve just created a new meat-like product with a chicken-ish taste.

It’s like a Charlie Chaplin look-alike contest where Charlie Chaplin himself ranks sixth. You can say someone looks almost like Charlie Chaplin, but claiming they look more like him than he does himself doesn’t make any sense. At that point you’re just saying you prefer the way one thing looks (or tastes) over the other. So you could equally say cake is better than meatballs.

Having opposing opinions doesn’t mandate insulting the other party.

You drive an old car to protect yourself from hackers. I drive an old car because I’m broke. We’re not the same.

If it’s connected to the internet then it can be hacked. Though in the literal meaning of the term virtually anything can be hacked. It just means finding an unconventional way to operate something.

That’s like saying cake is better than meatballs. “Vegan meat” has nothing to do with meat.

Iran has put satellites in orbit. The main difference between a space rocket and an ICBM is the payload. There’s a reason NASA got the budget to put a man on the moon during the Cold War - and it wasn’t pure love for space exploration.

Me as well. Easy choice as no other device came even close to having the features I wanted.

In some religions it’s also the reward for adultery. Usually only for women though.

I feel like they’re still improving, but we’re slowly hitting the point of diminishing returns. I think the next big leap will require a real breakthrough rather than just feeding even more data into our existing models.

It’s a language model and it’s already near-flawless at language. If we actually want a knowledge model, we probably need to try something different.

We punish people for speeding, driving under the influence, or texting while driving because those behaviors are reckless and we want to deter them. That makes sense.

But what about a freak accident where the driver did nothing wrong? Should they still be punished just because it happened to be them in the wrong place at the wrong time? In my opinion, no. If they didn’t do anything reckless or negligent, there’s no reason to think punishment would teach them anything useful. At that point it just feels like we’re satisfying our need for vengeance rather than serving any logical purpose.

With a self-driving car, every accident would basically fall into that “freak accident” category. The car wasn’t distracted, drunk, or driving recklessly. Maybe you could argue the company should pay compensation to the victim’s family or at least cover medical costs if the person survived as a gesture of good will - but I don’t see how the company would be morally responsible in a way that justifies fining or punishing them.

Just thinking aloud here. I don’t know what the actual answer is.

For me, intelligence isn’t about what someone knows - it’s about how they think. There’s no single thing someone could say or do that would instantly make me see them as intelligent. It would have to be the consistent demonstration of logical, rational thinking over a long stretch of time.

Frankly, it’s way easier to spot stupidity, and a huge number of people can hardly wait to broadcast their ignorance.