Data centers in space are the logical progression from the multi trillion business of m2m and edge computing. It removes all physical limits to investment.

You mean physical reality

Elon know FSD still takes time and that is the reason he is now ramping up the robot production. Who else to turn to to steer is upcoming fleet of taxies?

For major medical issues it may well be best practice to use the four eyes principle like we do for all safety related systems. Access is key and at this time getting a second pair of eyes in close timely proximity is a luxury few have and even fewer will have looking at the demographics in the developed world. Human doctors are failable as is AI. For the time being having a multitude of perspectives may well be the best in most cases.

The big bank phrase for "four eyes" was "maker/checker" and I always enjoyed that it rhymed.

You are 100% correct that, much like pilots overseeing autopilots, we should combine the best of both worlds in the medical field.

It is not wear that causes break systems to fail but lack of use resulting in a fairly recently discovered threat to blank metal: Rust.

I do drive to work almost every day, and I don't drive an electric car. So there is sufficient use.

And quite a few decades ago, people noticed that when you mix chromium, nickel, vanadium or things like that into your steel, it doesn't rust. Car manufacturers are just very slow in noticing.

The story needs only to hold up until car production has shut down.

Musk is a true genius: You were paying first for the hardware and then to conduct training supervision for the AI while taking full responsibility if something goes wrong.

The smartphone is talking to a highly sensitive receiver fed by a large sensitive antenna listening carefully in the direction of the smartphone. The base station is transmitting back a carefully directed beam with orders of magnitude more power than a smartphone. The system is highly asymmetrical. Ohh and maybe there is not one but many base stations talking concurrently to the smartphone so that if one looses some data the flow is maintained.

Consistency sells but is really hard to ensure in time bounded series of narrow discussions with changing participants. But this must not discount the value of the preceding often frustrating search for understanding the requirements and prototyping. Throwing away the prototype while all the lessons are still in the head can yield great design.

In feedback solicitation situations with multiple stakeholders, it's important to attach cost to suggestions. Consulted without being responsible is always a dangerous offering.

Not in the sense of "This is how long that will take me" (because who cares about someone else's time?), but in "Of the 3 things you requested, which 1 is your must-have?"

Often this is approximated via design/dev team pushback, but it's easier just to be explicit about it: i.e. everyone gets X change request tokens.

Your making an argument that Denmark should take over control of Silicon Valley as a matter of their national security. I can see a win-win scenario emerging: Denmark controls Silicon Valley saving their journalists (and possibly the world) while Trump gets rid of leftish distractors plus takes control of Greenland getting a infinitly large piece of land with hugh growth potential for golf places once the ice has melted.

This story is a fiction pitting the seller and buyer against each other in a context free vacuum. The reality is that between buyer and seller there are channels which are either under control of the seller or another powerfull third party. The playing field is very difficult to enter for new sellers and the number of sellers has been going down for a long time tilting the playing field more and more against the buyer.