I mean, is this so surprising?

With Meta focusing so much on social networks (Facebook, Messenger, Whatsapp, Instagram, Threads) acquiring the first social network for AI agents makes sense. They can fix the technical debt later.

Why do you think their life is devoid of meaning?

I really think that if Microsoft would be forced to improve user experience of Teams, it would lead to measurable impact when it comes to happiness of humankind.

I think it originates from The Restarurant at the end of the Universe: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/douglas_adams_125092

I kind of agree with your comment, but it can be written in a nicer way

I sort of hope someone will leak all private information about Peter Hummelgaard. He is one of the people behind this proposal, just so he would get a taste of his own medicine.

That would only "prove" that government officials should be exempt from government surveillance.

Isn’t it (ChatControl) also „marketed” as „safe and secure”? If they (politicians) don’t have their comms backdoored and still get their data stolen, then why would I trust them to secure (read „safely snoop on”) mine or even know what they’re talking about?

God, thats a hard fight in that case :(

I was thinking the same! This would be great , have a puzzle each other day. But i trust the organizers are going to do a great job and we will have fun either way.

Surprising amount of downvoted comments under this article. I wonder why

At least its not facebook or microsoft.

But the better question would be, who should be the company (or entity) we should trust to do such a thing?

This is super interesting, but why were we building concrete boats and are not doing it anymore? Was it more or less just a experiment?

In short it seems like a combination of high labor cost, high corrosion risk (concrete chips and salt water erodes the rebar inside) and technological advancement (fiberglass). Also the steel shortage that birth these in the first place was short lived.

Yep that. Plus the Mulberry harbours were designed specifically to be sunk to act as harbours and breakwaters, for which concrete is actually fairly well suited. We have other ways of building harbours during peacetime that don't involve sailing them across a large body of water though

Basically, no one would have ever started using concrete, if steel would have been more avaiable.

Fiberglass is super cheap and is what most boats are made out of now. Balsa wood core, fiberglass shell. Pennies compared to the cost of a concrete pour. Another issue is that concrete is porous so the rebar inside would rust faster.

In the end, there’s no reason why you can’t. There’s plenty of reason why you shouldn’t. Costs being the biggest. Fiberglass builds are just so much cheaper than anything before it.

It doesn't take away from your point, but from what I've seen balsa wood is rarely used these days and has been replaced with a high density foam core. If there's a crack or pinhole balsa wood is very problematic, it basically turns to mush.

Well, sort of we still are, there are competitions to build concrete boats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_canoe (also a thing in europe)

But not as commercial products. Because concrete is just not the best ship building material, you only use it if you either want the challenge (as a student) or you simply don't have anything better at hand.

This video came up in my feed yesterday, and in the end he makes a reference to Michael Lewis Moneyball and ”working within constraints”, the best with what they had when steel was scarce etc:

https://youtu.be/opwBfUC_rrI

Concrete is not a good material to build ships. As a ship moves it goes over waves and is subject to forces that want to bend the hull. Steel flexes slightly, but concrete does not not. It becomes brittle over time and the ship breaks apart.