This doesn’t risk their NATO membership at all. Why would it? They’re an important strategic ally. Jailing a genocidal war criminal wouldn’t change that much. The US might even support using him as a fall guy if that keeps popular support for Israel as a state.

Chinese firms are already trying to replicate it. Giving them one to study may just accelerate the process.

they’ll probably make sure that RAM only ever leaves China as part of more complex products

Which other components are subject to this limitation in China?

Is it so much worse to say “shoot” than “throw them out the window”?

I have joked to my wife that our kids are lucky they’re so cute so we don’t throw them out of the window during a heavy day of misbehavior.

Obviously we wouldn’t ever do that (even if they weren’t so cute), so the joke is cathartic and can be funny in the right context.

I just learned that people who are allergic to shrimp are also allergic to cockroaches.

I admit I may be wrong so I asked you to show me an example, since you talk with such certainty.

In fact this is an open question so nobody knows, even though most of the researchers believe human computation is equal as far as I know.

Backwards jumps are equally decidable for turing machines as for humans. Compiler and static code linters can trace through very complicated code and know that it will or will not halt, and optimize or warn based on the result.

I believe there’s nothing special about human computation abilities. Anything that is decidable by a human will be also decidable by a computer.

Please prove me wrong by showing a counter example.

Most of the “undecidable” are only undecidable for a subset of the problem instances, while a vast number of instances can be even trivially decidable. For example in the undecidable halting problem, both you and a computer can trivially deduce that while(true) will not halt. In the same way a computer can deduce that many instances of two pieces of code are semantically equivalent.

I’d like to see an instance of the problem where a human could decide it and the computer could not.

If a system is able to change their output or behavior to account for new information, has it not learned?

Depends on the setup and what you call learning. If you let them, bots can write down things to remember in future prompts, and edit those “memories”.

What do you think it’s meant for? It’s a perfect fit for any database that needs to uniquely identify a person.

The problem is using it as authorization without any other checks.

Good. I remember my parents boycotting South Africa over apartheid. Israel is acting much worse than they were.

What? That is true in small companies too.

Obviously wrong.

As far as I can tell, his involvement is investing in a rare earth mineral company as part of a green energy initiative. I don’t see anything connecting him to some “freedom city”. That’s Peter Thiel: https://www.insidehook.com/internet/peter-thiel-praxis-next-great-city-greenland

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Your original argument was that this conflict was opened by kidnapping the head of a state.

Faced with a counterpoint, you’re arguing it’s not like a much more serious invasion.

True, but that’s not invalidating the fact that it was not opened by a kidnapping.

Have you heard about the expression “moving the goalposts”?

It’s been frowned upon for decades.

That leads us to our second principle of object-oriented design: Favor object composition over class inheritance

• Design Patterns - Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software (1994)