Feel free. There’s nothing stopping you.

The reason it’s not feasible is because most human activity happens during the daylight hours. As such, having the unit of a “day” cover what’s typically a day makes things easier.
For example, banks , businesses and schools need to have a unified schedule across a jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction specifies a utc offset that defines the official business day you just have a less coordinated timezone system.
You also make knowing roughly what part of the waking cycle other parts of the world are in much harder. Right now it’s 0100 in utc-5. So it’s 0800 in utc+2, and people are eating breakfast, at work, getting kids to school and so on. If I want to know that without timezones I need to know where they are on the planet and what the relevant legal jurisdiction has mandated as coordinated business time. That’s effectively just a worse version of timezones.

The human conception of time is intrinsically linked to spatial location. Fighting that is just making it hard for no reason. What we need to do is stop fiddling with the time. No more (major) clock adjustments. Daylight savings only sucks because of the switch , so we should just pick one and stay.

It happens every couple of decades with AI. Since it’s a broader field than most people think, we have a pretty long cycle of a new development looking exciting, people getting way too excited and optimistic, the development being exactly what it was promised to be, and then people getting disappointed and avoiding anything with the AI label. Then we decide that because we’re used to this new thing, it can be used in stuff as was originally appropriate but it no longer qualifies as AI, because “that’s not AI, it’s just ___”.

To make the trade? Not actually that long. Planning and evaluating take longer, but he’s inevitably not the one pushing the buttons or making the plan, which is also not something that needs to be done for each one.

It takes me longer to move money between my checking and savings accounts.

The concerning thing isn’t the time investment, it’s the active nature of financial involvement in a situation where there’s a major conflict of interest.
Stock trading isn’t automatically problematic for an elected official, but it’s very easy to produce the appearance or actuality of improper conduct.
The safest route is to turn control over to a third party who doesn’t know who they’re managing.

It’s because I live and work with Muslims. Turns out there are as many of them who hold values I agree with as there are Christians or Jews.

The biggest difference I see is which groups get hate. I don’t see the need to defend Christianity because there’s no pervasive disparagement or hostility.
I occasionally defend Judaism because I occasionally encounter disparaging language or people who conflate the nation of Israel with either the ethnic group or the religion.

A lot of people make comments about how they’re not islamaphobic, but it just so happens to be that reality perfectly reflects their prejudiced beliefs.
Kinda like the people who aren’t mysoginists or anything, but have found that, coincidentally, the ideal and natural gender roles and power dynamics between the sexes perfectly mirrors the media representation of the 1950s.

As much as I think we should look to Europe for running a society, race and religious tolerance are not one of those subjects in which I defer to them.

Do you actually think it’s unexpected that people who are never fully allowed to integrate into society for some reason don’t fully integrate into society? That laws that make it specifically difficult for them to coexist might result in them … Not coexisting as well?

If it’s the content of their texts that’s causing you a concern, have I got news for you about every fucking religion.

Hopefully they never even knew. Just assumed the catch would come until it suddenly didn’t and they never noticed.

Yup, that’s the precedent bit I mentioned. They’re both valid ways of deciding ambiguity (a judge decides in this situation and other judges aren’t obligated to decide the same way, or lawyers debate the ambiguity, a jury decides, and courts strive for consistency), but they’re fundamentally different and slightly bewildering to people from the other model.

Purely an answer to the question "I mean, how different could they really be?”: fundamentally different in an almost unrecognizable way.

I don’t know how the German appeals system works, but there is a lot of room for difference.

A particular reading spree once caused me to learn that the UK, a modern civilized country, didn’t have what we would call a supreme court until 2009.
Their laws aren’t codified. We have a big book o’ laws, and we pass bills that modify the book. If it’s not in the book it’s not a law. They pass bills that are the laws. This sounds really similar until you consider that “the law” is a collection of every act of parliament going back nearly a thousand years, many of which cancel out others. Oh, and that extends to the concept of a “constitution”.

Some quick searching shows that Germany uses a fundamentally different legal model that views our big book o’ laws as unstructured because courts have a binding say in interpretation of the law. It seems that this regional court can be appealed, and also that their courts don’t use precedent like ours do, so an appeal is more like a second opinion than an escalation.
Judges are less referee and more investigator, so you can claim that the judge made a mistake with their decision, which is appeal.

Yes, I will just take your word for it over the word of the original people involved.

You keep talking about DARPA, when they’re not the same organization that backed ARPANET. Arpanet came before laws were passed saying DARPA could only fund projects directly related to defense.

DARPA was originally ARPA. They were under the department of defense but their project scope wasn’t limited to defense projects. The reorganization that rebranded the agency as DARPA and made it defense focused ostensibly saw the non-defense oriented moonshot project responsibility transfer to the NSF, although the funding shift wasn’t proportional.
The order of creation isn’t exactly relevant to how responsibilities have shifted.

It’s kinda like how, for the longest time, presidential security was handled by the Treasury department. It wasn’t because presidential security was considered a financial matter, but because that’s where it fit.

https://www.darpa.mil/news/features/arpanet

Secure communications and information-sharing between geographically dispersed research facilities were among the ARPANET’s original goals.

From your link to the arpanet wiki:

Building on the ideas of J. C. R. Licklider, Bob Taylor initiated the ARPANET project in 1966 to enable resource sharing between remote computers.

Sutherland and Taylor continued their interest in creating the network, in part, to allow ARPA-sponsored researchers at various corporate and academic locales to utilize computers provided by ARPA, and, in part, to quickly distribute new software and other computer science results.

There’s a big difference between ARPA funded labs and general university usage.

I’m not sure why it would matter that you worked for them in the early 90s. That doesn’t exactly give you a privileged insight into the creation of ARPANET.

The Internet that you’re posting on was built on top of a military network intended to provide redundant communication in the event of a global thermonuclear war.

Responding to this part alone: that’s not actually true.
The intent of arpanet, the direct predecessor to the Internet, was to make it easier for universities to use high powered computer resources located at national laboratories, as well as making it easier to distribute software updates. The person who initially pushed for it’s creation wanted “an electronic commons open to all, 'the main and essential medium of informational interaction for governments, institutions, corporations, and individuals '”. They secured funding for the initial computer science labratories, os research that underpin everything, and the foundation for the “INTERgalactic NETwork”.

Arpa was, at the time, the advanced research project agency. They were under the DoD, but they filled a role closer to the NSF today.

In designing the system they referenced work done by people who were studying robust communication networks. At the time that meant the phone system and nuclear weapons. The research, however, was applicable to any unstable network, and so had particular interest to them because computers had terrible reliability and they wanted to not have to call people if they discovered they had turned off a computer halfway between New York and LA.

The closest thing it has to a cold war military objective is to help us win the research race and spite the Soviets. It can withstand a nuclear attack, but that’s just because that’s the easiest way to make it survive a farmer with a backhoe accidentally hitting a wire.

The thing is they’re currently trying to sell as a business oriented tool. They’re not going to make money off of individuals.
Google is positioned to come closest because they’re already an advertising company.

If you think their focus isn’t businesses then you’re not paying attention to their strategy. The pressure to drive profitability is increasing as their business customers are reporting that investment in AI capabilities isn’t converting into measurable financial returns. That’s the type of news that makes investors wary.

If you operate at a loss, you need to be providing a value to your customers that you can leverage. You need more than high interest, you also need demonstrable utility.

There have also been plenty of times that a new technology just … Didn’t pan out. This specifically happens with AI technology, and we even have a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter The tech won’t go away, it’ll just be market infeasible for a while until it’s no longer called AI and is just a feature in some other product.

Take your comment and apply it to someone marketing “spell check as a service”.

This is capitalism working exactly as intended. People with capital are using it to guide businesses to make them more money.

The mistake is thinking that capitalism is motivated by a healthy economy, when the theory is that if everyone is aggressively selfish then the economy will naturally become healthy and efficient.

The people making money are counting on making their money as investors keep pumping more in. The investors are all aiming to be the last one to sell before the crash. Russian roulette venture capitalism. (In some cases they think the economy will tolerate 1-2 companies and they’re aiming to buy a controlling interest in a company worth 2% current value after the correction, and in others they just have so much money that a few billion is a minor bet - BlackRock comes to mind, with more than $10 trillion to invest)

If you look at 2008, we had a similar-ish situation with a major portion of the economy being invested in mortgage based investments.

Knowing how.

All routers are just Linux computers managing slightly better than average network cards. (Home routers, obviously. Beefy carrier hardware is different).

A basic setup is essentially installing Linux and then running a handful of commands for packet forwarding. The figuring out how to do it without wifi crashing will take longer because that software is wonky.

There will probably be a small logo, a mark, or, commonly, a depiction of a fly.

Pee on that.

There will probably be a small logo, a mark, or, commonly, a depiction of a fly.

Pee on that.

It’s really not a euphemism. There will always be a language that’s the most common for international trade, diplomacy, travel, and general discourse.

It was not always English, even when Britain was at the peak of its empire.

It’s easy to claim that it’s role as the lingua franca is bolstered by the international position of the US and Britain over the past 150 ish years, but that doesn’t make it a euphemism.

I think it just stands out because you suddenly understand a word in a different context. When English does it it doesn’t stand out because it’s so riddled with words from different origins that basically any random mouth sound passes as a plausible English word.

I went to a cafe and perused the menu, but I didn’t see anything I liked, not even coffee, so I waltzed out and went to the gourmet delicatessen across the street where I got a Reuben with extra sauerkraut. Hard to say no to corned beef.
Afterwards I picked up the kid from kindergarten, and we picked a restaurant to go to. I wanted sushi, and they wanted tacos, so we compromised and got hamburgers.
We went home, took a shower with the new shampoo, got into our pajamas and read our favorite genre of story: macho poncho wearing jungle robots singing opera karaoke in a salsa tsunami.

We didn’t adopt the words to be cool, it just fit better. It’s hardly surprising that other languages would at least occasionally find one of ours useful in some mysterious way that words blend across languages.

It’s that, plus other factors. The regulations are more lenient, it’s easier to get a more efficient engine in with more mass to work with, it’s easier to pass safety ranking checks, and it’s easier to put comfort features in that consumers want.
Putting a large crumple zone on a compact isn’t as easy as putting one on a giant truck.
(Note this isn’t saying big cars are more or proportionally more efficient , but that the efficiency advances they’ve made over the years are easier to implement in a large engine)

Why?

I use Linux. This means everyday I use software developed by Google, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, the US military and the NSA.

It doesn’t really matter who developed or contributed so much as who benefits.

I’m not sure that’s right. It’s not like they’re giving money to brave. The library itself isn’t tainted, and using it doesn’t benefit brave or the CEO.

Further, simply supporting a thing doesn’t make that thing a moral proxy for the supporter. That path leads to an infinite regress of bad moral choices with nothing being moral.